Is Jack someone we have never heard of?

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.
I agree, he cannot have known. Therefore, there must be another explanation.

I think this brings us round full circle, the impossibility only exists if Wilkinson was correct about the time.
The path of least resistance dictates Wilkinson was wrong, by at least 1 hour.
John K. made no attempt at determining what the time was when he arrived at the lodging-house, any 'mystery' was created purely by Wilkinson alone.

Hello Jon,

If he didnt know..Kelly..and could not have known. .It puts the onus of the responsibility on the police investigation.
You and I..and others..are just "amateur" observers.. yet we see terrible mistakes made.

It is only correct therefore to question the methodology of those investigating and actions of the police.
It doesn't wear well in some quarters..but so be it.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.
I agree, he cannot have known. Therefore, there must be another explanation.

I think this brings us round full circle, the impossibility only exists if Wilkinson was correct about the time.
The path of least resistance dictates Wilkinson was wrong, by at least 1 hour.
John K. made no attempt at determining what the time was when he arrived at the lodging-house, any 'mystery' was created purely by Wilkinson alone.

Hello Jon,

I would be in total agreement if the rest of the Kelly testimony wasnt full of holes. It is.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

But this bypasses the fact that a second person clocked Kelly in at the lodging house an hour or more BEFORE Eddowes was arrested.

He simply cannot have known before it happened.


Phil

Hi Phil.
I agree, he cannot have known. Therefore, there must be another explanation.

I think this brings us round full circle, the impossibility only exists if Wilkinson was correct about the time.
The path of least resistance dictates Wilkinson was wrong, by at least 1 hour.
John K. made no attempt at determining what the time was when he arrived at the lodging-house, any 'mystery' was created purely by Wilkinson alone.

[Phil Carter]

The Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy, Phil, for which I have provided a link to part 1, was a response to an attack on my own Suckered Trilogy by Wolf Vanderlinden. So it wasn't an attack on other people's "work" at all.

My own article on the origin of the Special Branch - which you say you are aware of - is not an attack on "other people's work". It is a fully researched article about the origins of the Special Branch. So your statement: "All you seem to do is attack other people's work" is demonstrably untrue.

That aside, you don't need to read any of my "suckering stuff" if you don't want to. I already provided a quote from one of my articles which explains the comment by Anderson that you placed reliance on.

And in any case we really just go back to my point that your friend's knowledge of policing in the circa 1970s simply doesn't get us anywhere near to understanding the Metropolitan Police and Special Branch in 1888.

Respectfully David,

Showing continuai argumentation, lack of humilty, giving the distinct impression of always being right, never being wrong, attacking writer after writer, tearing apart theory after theory eith a seeming.to this reader; venom..avoiding attacking anything that is pro police or pro Kosminski/Tumblety, just isnt to my taste. Additionally poor meaning jibes like "Life on Mars" at people give the distinct impression of "bring looked down upon". Which gives the impression of arrogance and a distinct lack of social skills and good manners.

Mellow down a little David. Just a piece of well meaning advice
You are not always right. You do not need to argue your point to get the final word. Then it only gives the impression of excessive interest. Which is why I personally choose other writers on the subject long before you.

Having attacked Bernard Porter, and anyone who has defended or supported something that goes against the "official" police-backed versions of events..in any way, down to the last morsel or word..I fully expect you to take various books of Messrs Begg and Evans apart.
It won't happen. .because that isnt your agenda..is it?

Now. Ive tried to tell you..as politely as I can..of the impression you publically give.
I am sorry. But it becomes..the impression. .of compulsive behaviour.
Id take far more close observation of your written material had you shown a soupcon of humility.

Im just a long time interested party. Nothing special at all. Get masses wrong too. But I try to respect LIVING authors and their works. In your case.. I find that increasingly hard to do.

Respectfully


Phil

[David Orsam]

Oh ive read your suckering stuff.
I prefer, as is my whim, other writers.
All you seem to do is attack other people's work.
That isnt to my taste. Sorry.

The Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy, Phil, for which I have provided a link to part 1, was a response to an attack on my own Suckered Trilogy by Wolf Vanderlinden. So it wasn't an attack on other people's "work" at all.

My own article on the origin of the Special Branch - which you say you are aware of - is not an attack on "other people's work". It is a fully researched article about the origins of the Special Branch. So your statement: "All you seem to do is attack other people's work" is demonstrably untrue.

That aside, you don't need to read any of my "suckering stuff" if you don't want to. I already provided a quote from one of my articles which explains the comment by Anderson that you placed reliance on.

And in any case we really just go back to my point that your friend's knowledge of policing in the circa 1970s simply doesn't get us anywhere near to understanding the Metropolitan Police and Special Branch in 1888.

[Phil Carter]

Not only am I aware of the quote you have reproduced out of context from the late 1890s but I commented on it in my article Reconstructing Jack. As I say in that article, when read in context, it means "little more than surveillance of foreign anarchists in the 1890s - perhaps other counter measures against them too, such as interception of mail - but nothing that we would today regard as anything extraordinary."

http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm

See also my comments on a similar memo of Anderson in Part 1 of The Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/0743part1.htm

But you have really missed the point Phil. What I was saying is that your friend's knowledge of police procedure in the 1970s does not help us as to what was happening in the 1880s. In the 1880s, the police could have been corrupt to a man or totally upright but we can only know this from the documentary evidence available to us from the 1880s. Given that everyone alive in that period is dead, there is no other way. I wasn't insulting the knowledge of a hardened CID detective because he only knows anything about the police in the period he was in the force.

Oh ive read your suckering stuff.
I prefer, as is my whim, other writers.
All you seem to do is attack other people's work.
That isnt to my taste. Sorry

Phil

[Phil Carter]

That's all very fascinating Phil, but what, pray tell does it have anything to do with the ripper and the murder of unfortunates?

I have yet to see anyone put forth a coherent theory on any of this conspiracy stuff. Just a lot of nebulous innuendo.

Were the women Fenian operatives murdered by the special branch?
or maybe they were informants for the special branch asassinated by the Fenians?
Were they killed by Czarist spies to foment revolution?
Or were they killed by anarchists looking to bring down the British government?
Or perhaps Jewish socialists to discredit the London Police?

what is it? whats the theory?

No conspiracy theory... no theory at sll.
Shame..but thats how it is.

What I do say is simple.
There were things going on in the area of very serious importance. To ignore it as unconnected is foolish. For it may be.

Phil

[David Orsam]

Oh dear...cometh the hour..cometh you.

Why don't you sit back snd cast your beady eyes on the following. .

Robert Anderson was into all subversive crime activity prevention. He blatantly admitted that he and his mob broke the law to achieve their goals. He wasnt the only one. The Walsall bomb plot on I believe 1897 demonstrates the lengths Special Branch and C.I.D. went to.
The police engaged on "utterly unlawful things"..
memo initialled by Anderson 13/12/98. H.O./451025/X36450, sub.77

Sorry David old chap. .you insult the knowledge of a hardened C.I.D. Detective.
Quiet off the board ops have been going on for well over 100 years.

look it up.

Not only am I aware of the quote you have reproduced out of context from the late 1890s but I commented on it in my article Reconstructing Jack. As I say in that article, when read in context, it means "little more than surveillance of foreign anarchists in the 1890s - perhaps other counter measures against them too, such as interception of mail - but nothing that we would today regard as anything extraordinary."

http://www.orsam.co.uk/reconstructingjack.htm

See also my comments on a similar memo of Anderson in Part 1 of The Suckered! Plus Quadrilogy:

http://www.orsam.co.uk/0743part1.htm

But you have really missed the point Phil. What I was saying is that your friend's knowledge of police procedure in the 1970s does not help us as to what was happening in the 1880s. In the 1880s, the police could have been corrupt to a man or totally upright but we can only know this from the documentary evidence available to us from the 1880s. Given that everyone alive in that period is dead, there is no other way. I wasn't insulting the knowledge of a hardened CID detective because he only knows anything about the police in the period he was in the force.

[Abby Normal]

Hello all,

I wrote this a few years ago whilst helping Trevor Marriott in his unenviable hunt to gain access via the F.O.A. to the Special Branch Ledgers.
it is important to note that the same rules of marrying up known history as presented to us today can only be done whilst considering the things that mist never hear of.
I allow myself therefore to re quote my previous post on the subject, hereunder.

*Alex Butterworth.

By way of introduction, Alex Butterworth's book, The World That Never Was, published by Bodley Head, 2010 is an impressive and extensive 482 page account of the underground workings of the Anarchists, Secret Agents, Special Branch Policemen, Politicians etc in the latter half of the LVP, much of which centered around little Whitechapel.*

It tells of the plans, some foiled, some exposed, naming the people involved of various plots against Tsars, Empresses, Presidents, Queen Victoria, and Government ministers, inter-linking various countries all over Europe.*

Feniansm, anarchism, radical Jews, revolution, counter espionage, the disparate and at times desparate attempts to overthrow, undermine and terrorise and spread fear amongst the community of various countries, with an empahsis on what happened in the sucluded world of Special Branch to counter these threats, and who were central in the machinations working against them..

The police chiefs and their agents spun their own web of intrigue and plots, and with the help of the Special Branch ledgers amongst other things, we are given a very valuable insight into Late Victorian undercover police employment.*
London and Paris were hotbeds of International plotters of sorts, including the very much talked of Fenians. Mixed up amongst this, revolutionists had in their midst agents from the Special Branch at Scotland Yard, the French Surete and the Russian Ochrana loitering and interweaving into groups at street level attempting to reveal and uncover the various conspiracies being set up around them. The methods these undercover organizations used were highly secretive, and Butterworth's book reveals much to the general public on the men orchestrating the counter-espionage.*

Monro, Littlechild, Anderson, Williamson, Melville, Sweeney and many others are all involved. The underground police and governments of Switzerland and Austria, France and Russia, are all linked. Rachovsky was, liked those named above, a central brick in the wall against activists, creating and setting up the London branch of Ochrana, and worked closely with the Special Branch, yet officially at least, keeping their distance.

The ledgers are of central importance to everything these men did. First Jenkinson, then Monro, and then Melville at the helm. Monro's "hot potato" is a very intelligent, knowledgable and realistic comment. It puts the fantasies of Anderson's 1910 comments into complete perspective.

I recommend this book to anyone who really wants to get to know the happenings and involvement of Special Branch at street level. The IWMEC, The Anarchists, The Revolutionaries, the Fenians, The Jewish uprisings, the FEAR that was created in and around Mr and Mrs Jones in that little area called Whitechapel is brought into view. No wonder the ordinary people were in complete and utter fear. People talk of "cockney spirit". Trying to romantacise that statement in retrospect will never really show what it really means to be born and brought up in and amongst this degredation, trepedation and chaos. And all the while, poor, dishevelled, outcast females were being slaughtered and hacked into pieces in their midst.*

Alex Butterworth's account is an amazing book of real people, doing real things,*all of which are true. It has been described as a Tour de Force. I can only add that it takes historical account onto another level, with hundreds of cross references, names, dates and times.*

Those ledgers are of immense historical value to us all.*The greatest crime would be if Trevor Marriot does not succeed in bringing them completely into the light of day. I wish him every success and all our complete support should be with him in his quest, for the time has come for openess and respect from the public authority that holds them to be shown to the historically minded everyday people*they serve.*We are very interested in our TRUE history, and the time has come for them to realise that we would respect that authority far more if they revealed the secrets of ANY documentation from 120 odd years ago, instead of hiding them away and telling lies as to their non-existance or destruction, as has been done on countless occasions to historian and researcher alike in the past. It is OUR history, and we have a right to know it, be we researcher, historian, ex-policeman, or especially, a relative of any victim. That is the way things are handled today, in 2010. It should apply to the happenings of 1888.


Phil

That's all very fascinating Phil, but what, pray tell does it have anything to do with the ripper and the murder of unfortunates?

I have yet to see anyone put forth a coherent theory on any of this conspiracy stuff. Just a lot of nebulous innuendo.

Were the women Fenian operatives murdered by the special branch?
or maybe they were informants for the special branch asassinated by the Fenians?
Were they killed by Czarist spies to foment revolution?
Or were they killed by anarchists looking to bring down the British government?
Or perhaps Jewish socialists to discredit the London Police?

what is it? whats the theory?

[Phil Carter]

Just a heads up Phil, David has written a rather long essay on the birth of the Special Branch, the antics of Anderson, Monroe and co.

http://www.orsam.co.uk/specialbranch.htm

Thanks for the heads up drstrange. Yes. I am aware of it.
However I still recommend the Alex Butterworth book.


Phil

[drstrange169]

Just a heads up Phil, David has written a rather long essay on the birth of the Special Branch, the antics of Anderson, Monroe and co.

http://www.orsam.co.uk/specialbranch.htm

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I wrote this a few years ago whilst helping Trevor Marriott in his unenviable hunt to gain access via the F.O.A. to the Special Branch Ledgers.
it is important to note that the same rules of marrying up known history as presented to us today can only be done whilst considering the things that mist never hear of.
I allow myself therefore to re quote my previous post on the subject, hereunder.

*Alex Butterworth.

By way of introduction, Alex Butterworth's book, The World That Never Was, published by Bodley Head, 2010 is an impressive and extensive 482 page account of the underground workings of the Anarchists, Secret Agents, Special Branch Policemen, Politicians etc in the latter half of the LVP, much of which centered around little Whitechapel.*

It tells of the plans, some foiled, some exposed, naming the people involved of various plots against Tsars, Empresses, Presidents, Queen Victoria, and Government ministers, inter-linking various countries all over Europe.*

Feniansm, anarchism, radical Jews, revolution, counter espionage, the disparate and at times desparate attempts to overthrow, undermine and terrorise and spread fear amongst the community of various countries, with an empahsis on what happened in the sucluded world of Special Branch to counter these threats, and who were central in the machinations working against them..

The police chiefs and their agents spun their own web of intrigue and plots, and with the help of the Special Branch ledgers amongst other things, we are given a very valuable insight into Late Victorian undercover police employment.*
London and Paris were hotbeds of International plotters of sorts, including the very much talked of Fenians. Mixed up amongst this, revolutionists had in their midst agents from the Special Branch at Scotland Yard, the French Surete and the Russian Ochrana loitering and interweaving into groups at street level attempting to reveal and uncover the various conspiracies being set up around them. The methods these undercover organizations used were highly secretive, and Butterworth's book reveals much to the general public on the men orchestrating the counter-espionage.*

Monro, Littlechild, Anderson, Williamson, Melville, Sweeney and many others are all involved. The underground police and governments of Switzerland and Austria, France and Russia, are all linked. Rachovsky was, liked those named above, a central brick in the wall against activists, creating and setting up the London branch of Ochrana, and worked closely with the Special Branch, yet officially at least, keeping their distance.

The ledgers are of central importance to everything these men did. First Jenkinson, then Monro, and then Melville at the helm. Monro's "hot potato" is a very intelligent, knowledgable and realistic comment. It puts the fantasies of Anderson's 1910 comments into complete perspective.

I recommend this book to anyone who really wants to get to know the happenings and involvement of Special Branch at street level. The IWMEC, The Anarchists, The Revolutionaries, the Fenians, The Jewish uprisings, the FEAR that was created in and around Mr and Mrs Jones in that little area called Whitechapel is brought into view. No wonder the ordinary people were in complete and utter fear. People talk of "cockney spirit". Trying to romantacise that statement in retrospect will never really show what it really means to be born and brought up in and amongst this degredation, trepedation and chaos. And all the while, poor, dishevelled, outcast females were being slaughtered and hacked into pieces in their midst.*

Alex Butterworth's account is an amazing book of real people, doing real things,*all of which are true. It has been described as a Tour de Force. I can only add that it takes historical account onto another level, with hundreds of cross references, names, dates and times.*

Those ledgers are of immense historical value to us all.*The greatest crime would be if Trevor Marriot does not succeed in bringing them completely into the light of day. I wish him every success and all our complete support should be with him in his quest, for the time has come for openess and respect from the public authority that holds them to be shown to the historically minded everyday people*they serve.*We are very interested in our TRUE history, and the time has come for them to realise that we would respect that authority far more if they revealed the secrets of ANY documentation from 120 odd years ago, instead of hiding them away and telling lies as to their non-existance or destruction, as has been done on countless occasions to historian and researcher alike in the past. It is OUR history, and we have a right to know it, be we researcher, historian, ex-policeman, or especially, a relative of any victim. That is the way things are handled today, in 2010. It should apply to the happenings of 1888.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

Apart from the above..I humbly suggest you read Alex Butterworth's The World that never was" from 2010.

It will inform you that your "Life on Mars" p*sstaking comment makes you look rather silly.

History. Full of things most people know nothing about.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.

It happens to be a reality that people have a different interpretation of what is required to "make sure".
In John Kelly's case, if he asked a fellow lodger who had been in the City lockup for being drunk, and was told when they turned them out, that might be sufficient.
Before radio & tv, people were far more trusting in the opinion of their fellow man.

Hello Jon,

But this bypasses the fact that a second person clocked Kelly in at the lodging house an hour or more BEFORE Eddowes was arrested.

He simply cannot have known before it happened.


Phil

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

They back each other up..and both are in dreadful error.

as to the last line. .that has nothing to do with Kelly "making sure Eddowes was out by "Sunday" you cannot be suggesting that all he did was ask someone when the City mob released their drunks? That is poor interpretation of "making sure" I think

Phil.

Hi Phil.

It happens to be a reality that people have a different interpretation of what is required to "make sure".
In John Kelly's case, if he asked a fellow lodger who had been in the City lockup for being drunk, and was told when they turned them out, that might be sufficient.
Before radio & tv, people were far more trusting in the opinion of their fellow man.