What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Phil Carter]

Couldn't all of them have been wrong?

Hi Herlock

Yes, of course, they all could.

However, if one is going to delve into the reasons why a policeman, retired or not, pronounced something either that he knew to be, or wasn't 100% sure was right, then one must look at the question, why?

Why would X amount of policemen all pronounce knowledge on the case, all claiming a hold on the truth, all come to a different conclusion, yet all be wrong?

To me, and perhaps I'm being opaque, it seems very detrimental to the abilities of Scotland Yards finest to just say, "they were all wrong". It sounds like, as a working team the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing, and failed abjectvely to actually communicate with each other. I find that more incredulous than all buckling under the OSA.

It has to be stressed, that the new Act imposed a very strict punishment for breaking the Official Secrets Act. Imprisonment. For a long period.

Now, I suggest that the shame on a family name having an ex policeman locked up in prison would be, as, we know of Victorian arritudes, quite deplorable.
Would men of long service risk imprisonment for this? I suggest not.

I will repeat. The aim of the OSA 1889, was to silence those working for HM Government and the Crown To ensure silence on truth. As long as it wasn't true it did not contravene the OSA.

And as we all know, the Whitechapel Murders series was never solved. So no true name, no true suspect, no person involved, could be affected.

I remind all that the original case files were, in fact, stamped "closed" for 100 years. Like all such cases.
(even though they were seen and opened earlier)


Phil

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Phil

Out of interest Phil do we know if any police officer ever fell foul of the act and was imprisoned?

[rjpalmer]

do we know if any police officer ever fell foul of the act and was imprisoned?

Of course we don't; it doesn't happen.

By policy, police officers don't talk about on-going criminal investigations because it may complicate future prosecutions; it could also expose "the Yard" to libel suits. Third, it would reveal police methods to professional criminals. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Official Secrets Act which is meant to prosecute those guilty of serious acts of spying: a military engineer giving the plans of an army base to a foreign power, an MP selling state secrets, etc

Scribbling down the name of an East End Jew in a 22 year old murder case in the margin of one's private book is not an offense.

Think of it this way, Herlock. In 1910, when Robert Anderson decided against naming the journalist who supposedly created the "Dear Boss" hoax, he referred to the "traditions of Scotland Yard" (the policy of not talking to the press already mentioned by Jon) as well as the risk of a libel suit. He said nothing about the OSA, because it would hardly have been relevant, since the naming of a hoaxing journalist was not a matter that could affect national security. There is no way he would have been prosecuted under the Act, and according to UK government websites, less than one person a year is prosecuted under the OSA. It's very rare.

Le Caron was another matter, and was relevant to the OSA because he was a paid government informer that was supplying information that could affect national security and was doing so in a foreign country. Why would a standard domestic criminal case be considered an issue of national security? There were other policies in place to deal with such matters.

[rjpalmer]

How Anderson reconciled this specious argument with the fact that in 1886 he had been officially relieved of all intelligence duties other than controlling Le Caron is unknown

I think that was his argument, Simon. Thrown off the playing field, he thought he was within his rights to take his bat and ball and go home.

Being "relieved of his duties" as an intelligence expert, he was arguing that his communications with Beach were now merely the acts of a private patriotic citizen, and thus didn't fall under the rules of the OSA.

This is side-stepping the issue, of course. If Anderson was relieved of his duties, why was he still meddling with a paid government informer?

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

And the answer has to do with Anderson's purported "trip to Switzerland."

Regards,

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Hi Simon.

I admit that I'm having difficulty visualizing Sir Robert climbing the Matterhorn.

Best wishes.

Hi Wickerman - You probably known this, but there were Druitts in the East End. In 1891, Jabez Druitt is listed as living in the Mile End Vestry (picture below, now housing the Tower Hamlets Local History Library). A reasonably well-off stone mason with 20 men working under him, he was born in the East End and is listed as a member of the vestry board by at least 1889. (There is also an "A. Druitt" listed as attending their meetings, perhaps his wife Anne). A link to the Druitts of Dorset seems like a fairly remote possibility, but I don't know if anyone has ever researched it. There was also another Druitt stonemason in West Ham. Regards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course we don't; it doesn't happen.

By policy, police officers don't talk about on-going criminal investigations because it may complicate future prosecutions; it could also expose "the Yard" to libel suits. Third, it would reveal police methods to professional criminals. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Official Secrets Act which is meant to prosecute those guilty of serious acts of spying: a military engineer giving the plans of an army base to a foreign power, an MP selling state secrets, etc

Scribbling down the name of an East End Jew in a 22 year old murder case in the margin of one's private book is not an offense.

Think of it this way, Herlock. In 1910, when Robert Anderson decided against naming the journalist who supposedly created the "Dear Boss" hoax, he referred to the "traditions of Scotland Yard" (the policy of not talking to the press already mentioned by Jon) as well as the risk of a libel suit. He said nothing about the OSA, because it would hardly have been relevant, since the naming of a hoaxing journalist was not a matter that could affect national security. There is no way he would have been prosecuted under the Act, and according to UK government websites, less than one person a year is prosecuted under the OSA. It's very rare.

Le Caron was another matter, and was relevant to the OSA because he was a paid government informer that was supplying information that could affect national security and was doing so in a foreign country. Why would a standard domestic criminal case be considered an issue of national security? There were other policies in place to deal with such matters.

Thank you Roger. I suspected as much (as you probably guessed.)

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman - You probably known this, but there were Druitts in the East End. In 1891, Jabez Druitt is listed as living in the Mile End Vestry (picture below, now housing the Tower Hamlets Local History Library). A reasonably well-off stone mason with 20 men working under him, he was born in the East End and is listed as a member of the vestry board by at least 1889. (There is also an "A. Druitt" listed as attending their meetings, perhaps his wife Anne). A link to the Druitts of Dorset seems like a fairly remote possibility, but I don't know if anyone has ever researched it. There was also another Druitt stonemason in West Ham. Regards.

Thankyou RJ.

Yes, Jabez I was familiar with, I seem to recall him being discounted as a contact for Montie for some reason, but the other Druitt you mention is new to me, thanks.

[Phil Carter]

Thank you Roger. I suspected as much (as you probably guessed.)

Hi Herlock

I think it important to add that as the OSA was brand new, I'd suggest that there was a greater awareness of this anyway. That may have a bearing in the matter, to be fair.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

That "confidential" information.. The memoranda, was indeed marked "confidential" . To that I will concede.
However. "internal" we can dispute. As has previously been gone over 1000 times, it was so "internal" it wasn't addressed to any department nor person, internally.
Oh, and before someone shouts "it was meant for the Home Office".. That's not internal. That's an external department outside of Scotland Yard.

Hi Phil.

I wouldn't hang any hat on my choice of word - "internal". I was only meaning not for public consumption.

Scotland Yard c/w the Met. are under Home Office control, so the Home Secretary is Macnaghten's superior, and as such is included in any paperwork marked, 'confidential'. I'm not saying Mac. wrote his memorandum for the H.O., that's a matter of opinion. I'm just saying the H.O. will have had access to anything marked 'confidential' within Scotland Yard.

I'm still waiting for you to address many of my points. If 4,5 or 10 policemen publically comment on an unsolved case, and all have different scenarios, including putting other scenarios down, 3 out of 4, 4/5 or 9/10 of them MUST be wrong. Like I stated. The most natural thing is for the whole lot if them to have agreed on a certain scenario or suspect. At least, one most likely when talking of the case. But no. They all differ.

Ok, I wasn't aware you were waiting, the questions you posed seemed rhetorical, like there is only one answer and we both know what it is. I was not disputing your point. I agree, contrary to what many write, there was no "police opinion" on the leading suspect.

To get around the OSA, which commanded a silence on truths, its easy to make up names, make up scenarios and bend truths. That way no one is liable for prosecution.

It sounds like you are giving support for Hainsworth's proposition regarding the factual changes made by Mac. That his suspect was "said to be a doctor", when he wasn't, or "he had been held in an asylum for some time", when he hadn't.
Intentional changes in order to avoid libel?

You keep saying "they all did it" in their memoirs. Yes.. They did.. But ONLY. talk about things already in public knowledge.
But not one, as far as I can recall, told true tales about unsolved murder suspects. They simply cannot name names not truisms that would in any way endanger the OSA Let alone the names of innocent persons. Let alone spill the beans on the workings or inability of the force.
Phil

Like I said before, the OSA was for people like Burgess, Maclean, Philby, etc. actual spies, not over-the-hill coppers telling tales out of school.


J.J. Hainsworth will be pleased you support his view on Mac's intentional deception to hide Druitt's true identity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I think it important to add that as the OSA was brand new, I'd suggest that there was a greater awareness of this anyway. That may have a bearing in the matter, to be fair.

Phil

Thanks for that Phil

[Phil Carter]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act_1889

[Wickerman]

Hi RJ,

And the answer has to do with Anderson's purported "trip to Switzerland."

Regards,

Simon

You're not going to tell us anything about this trip to Switzerland, are you Simon?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

I cannot tell you anything about Anderson's trip to Switzerland, because it never took place.

But once I have all the facts in front of me, I will tell you where Anderson was during this period.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

I wouldn't hang any hat on my choice of word - "internal". I was only meaning not for public consumption.

Scotland Yard c/w the Met. are under Home Office control, so the Home Secretary is Macnaghten's superior, and as such is included in any paperwork marked, 'confidential'. I'm not saying Mac. wrote his memorandum for the H.O., that's a matter of opinion. I'm just saying the H.O. will have had access to anything marked 'confidential' within Scotland Yard.



Ok, I wasn't aware you were waiting, the questions you posed seemed rhetorical, like there is only one answer and we both know what it is. I was not disputing your point. I agree, contrary to what many write, there was no "police opinion" on the leading suspect.



It sounds like you are giving support for Hainsworth's proposition regarding the factual changes made by Mac. That his suspect was "said to be a doctor", when he wasn't, or "he had been held in an asylum for some time", when he hadn't.
Intentional changes in order to avoid libel?



Like I said before, the OSA was for people like Burgess, Maclean, Philby, etc. actual spies, not over-the-hill coppers telling tales out of school.


J.J. Hainsworth will be pleased you support his view on Mac's intentional deception to hide Druitt's true identity.

Hi Jon

Thanks for the reply. Appreciated.

No hat hanging, re internal. Just defining the word. The Home Office is a different entity in a different building, and a complete different department. Only partly connected to Scotland Yard. It has many other, separate functions. So.. Internal? Not imho.

Although we agree to there being no general police opinion on the subject, it rather misses the point. There must be a reason for it. That is the point.
As I said previously, it points towards zero communication at a high level, through the ranks, or, a blanket reason for such differences.
I doubt the first, for obvious reasons. So inept they cannot have been. Therefore, a blanket reason becomes far more sensible. The OSA covers this and each individual.

Your reference to McClean and Burgess etc only highlights one type of example. Even two years ago, UK policemen were charged with breaking the OSA. Nothing to do with spies, I might add.

I do not, as you know, support Mr Hainsworths over complicated reasoning of psychological reasoning. Not at all. And libel? No.

But the law regarding the OSA, and not just MM. ALL of them?.. Yes.. . I've posted (above) the OSA 1889, and when read through carefully, the word "knowledge" becomes important, as well as "documents" or papers. Have a look at the penalties....

Again, regarding Druitt and his true identity, I do not jump on the Hainsworths bandwagon, because simply put, the OSA protects the truth from coming out. Therefore a long drawn out psychological super 'now you see me now you don't " guessing game a la Hainsworth becomes completely unnecessary.
It simply over complicates it.


Phil