Suspect elimination

[Trevor Marriott]

I posted this on another thread but I think it needs a separate thread !!!!!!

HO 144/221A49301G, is a file that relates to the payment of additional expenses to police officers drafted into Whitechapel at the time of the murders. It has been long suggested that a short time after the Mary Kelly murder in November 1888 the police operation in Whitechapel was wound down. This is not correct !!!!!!!!!!!

Some researchers have used this theory to suggest that it was because the police knew the identity of the killer and that fact that he could not kill again. This could relate to the Druitt theory, or perhaps Tumblety fleeing the country or any other likely suspect for that matter.

The truth is that this file shows that the police who were drafted into Whitechapel were kept on at great additional expense long after the Mary Kelly murder. They were not stood down for some considerable time long after the Kelly murder.

In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a complement of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions from outside Whitechapel, that decreased slightly in January 1890 to three sergeants and twenty-six constables and in March 1890 it was reduced even more to two sergeants and eleven constables which may indicate that they suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.

This same file contains memos from many senior officers regarding the concerns over the cost of this extra manpower. Clearly, this shows that up until then the police did not have any clue as to the identity of Jack the Ripper or any suspicions about any other likely suspect. So that must in itself eliminate many of the likely suspects from further suspicion along with the lack of any evidence!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

I posted this on another thread but I think it needs a separate thread !!!!!!

HO 144/221A49301G, is a file that relates to the payment of additional expenses to police officers drafted into Whitechapel at the time of the murders. It has been long suggested that a short time after the Mary Kelly murder in November 1888 the police operation in Whitechapel was wound down. This is not correct !!!!!!!!!!!

Some researchers have used this theory to suggest that it was because the police knew the identity of the killer and that fact that he could not kill again. This could relate to the Druitt theory, or perhaps Tumblety fleeing the country or any other likely suspect for that matter.

The truth is that this file shows that the police who were drafted into Whitechapel were kept on at great additional expense long after the Mary Kelly murder. They were not stood down for some considerable time long after the Kelly murder.

In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a complement of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions from outside Whitechapel, that decreased slightly in January 1890 to three sergeants and twenty-six constables and in March 1890 it was reduced even more to two sergeants and eleven constables which may indicate that they suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.

This same file contains memos from many senior officers regarding the concerns over the cost of this extra manpower. Clearly, this shows that up until then the police did not have any clue as to the identity of Jack the Ripper or any suspicions about any other likely suspect. So that must in itself eliminate many of the likely suspects from further suspicion along with the lack of any evidence!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A very informative and interesting post, Trevor -
and I agree that it deserves its own thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I posted this on another thread but I think it needs a separate thread !!!!!!

HO 144/221A49301G, is a file that relates to the payment of additional expenses to police officers drafted into Whitechapel at the time of the murders. It has been long suggested that a short time after the Mary Kelly murder in November 1888 the police operation in Whitechapel was wound down. This is not correct !!!!!!!!!!!

Some researchers have used this theory to suggest that it was because the police knew the identity of the killer and that fact that he could not kill again. This could relate to the Druitt theory, or perhaps Tumblety fleeing the country or any other likely suspect for that matter.

The truth is that this file shows that the police who were drafted into Whitechapel were kept on at great additional expense long after the Mary Kelly murder. They were not stood down for some considerable time long after the Kelly murder.

In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a complement of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions from outside Whitechapel, that decreased slightly in January 1890 to three sergeants and twenty-six constables and in March 1890 it was reduced even more to two sergeants and eleven constables which may indicate that they suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.

This same file contains memos from many senior officers regarding the concerns over the cost of this extra manpower. Clearly, this shows that up until then the police did not have any clue as to the identity of Jack the Ripper or any suspicions about any other likely suspect. So that must in itself eliminate many of the likely suspects from further suspicion along with the lack of any evidence!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s a point certainly worth making Trevor and shows that none of us can say that the police though that it was game over immediately after Kelly, but it only proves that either they weren’t certain about the identity of the killer or that they might even have had a strong suspect (in their own opinions) but didn’t have enough to convict. They couldn’t have dramatically reduced Officer numbers in case they were wrong and the real killer struck again. Or, if for example they had someone that they considered a strong suspect but didn’t have enough evidence for a conviction wouldn’t a reduction in officers on the ground have led to questions being asked? “Why the reduction?” “Do you know something that you’re not telling us?”

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s a point certainly worth making Trevor and shows that none of us can say that the police though that it was game over immediately after Kelly, but it only proves that either they weren’t certain about the identity of the killer or that they might even have had a strong suspect (in their own opinions) but didn’t have enough to convict. They couldn’t have dramatically reduced Officer numbers in case they were wrong and the real killer struck again. Or, if for example they had someone that they considered a strong suspect but didn’t have enough evidence for a conviction wouldn’t a reduction in officers on the ground have led to questions being asked? “Why the reduction?” “Do you know something that you’re not telling us?”

If they had a strong suspect, they had two options- arrest on suspicion or keep constant observations on that suspect in the HO file there is no evidence of either to justify the extra cost and the extra manpower being needed and as can be seen senior officers raised concerns over the cost of the extra manpower. So I have to say again this tends to show that the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If they had a strong suspect, they had two options- arrest on suspicion or keep constant observations on that suspect in the HO file there is no evidence of either to justify the extra cost and the extra manpower being needed and as can be seen senior officers raised concerns over the cost of the extra manpower. So I have to say again this tends to show that the police did not have any clues as to the identity of the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why would they have arrested a suspect if they knew that they didn’t have sufficient evidence to charge him though?

[jason_c]

I have long thought it likely the police had a number of individuals under observation. I think we know this was the case during the canonical murders. The multiple suspects probably continued well after Kelly's murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would they have arrested a suspect if they knew that they didn’t have sufficient evidence to charge him though?

Because the police codes of the day gave the police the power to arrest on suspicion, and having been arrested that person would have been interviewed and may have admitted the crimes, and while in custody the police could search that person's address in an attempt to obtain more evidence and the worst case scenario if neither was forthcoming the person arrested would after release stop the murders. But it is clear by the actions of the police in keeping officers from other divisions actively engaged over that long period of time they didn't have any suspect so the suspicion against some of the known suspects which have arisen from some senior officers in later years is drastically weakened to the point that they can be eliminated, along with the belief that the police knew the identity of the killer but for whatever reason chose to withhold it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because the police codes of the day gave the police the power to arrest on suspicion, and having been arrested that person would have been interviewed and may have admitted the crimes, and while in custody the police could search that person's address in an attempt to obtain more evidence and the worst case scenario if neither was forthcoming the person arrested would after release stop the murders. But it is clear by the actions of the police in keeping officers from other divisions actively engaged over that long period of time they didn't have any suspect so the suspicion against some of the known suspects which have arisen from some senior officers in later years is drastically weakened to the point that they can be eliminated, along with the belief that the police knew the identity of the killer but for whatever reason chose to withhold it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So they could have arrested their suspect, reduced the police on the ground, found that they couldn’t find enough to convict him, released him, then increased the police presence back to what it was before the arrest?

[Trevor Marriott]

So they could have arrested their suspect, reduced the police on the ground, found that they couldn’t find enough to convict him, released him, then increased the police presence back to what it was before the arrest?

The point is there was never a prime suspect to arrest !!!!!!!!!! There is no evidence of the band of so-called prime suspects continually discussed on here ever being arrested in connection with these murders and very little if any evidence to link them to the murders. So why are they categorised as prime suspects we should be removing then from the list along with the other non starters

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The point is there was never a prime suspect to arrest !!!!!!!!!! There is no evidence of the band of so-called prime suspects continually discussed on here ever being arrested in connection with these murders and very little if any evidence to link them to the murders. So why are they categorised as prime suspects we should be removing then from the list along with the other non starters

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The discussion was in relation to your point that the police hadn’t reduced the number of officers on the case which I accept of course. Your position was that if there had been a suspect then they would have arrested him and after the arrest they could have gathered together the necessary evidence to have been able to charge him and could then have reduced the number of officers.

My point is this Trevor (the one that I’ve already made) what if they couldn’t find enough evidence that would have justified charging him? When you were in the force surely every arrest didn’t result in the CPS saying “charge him.”? So why couldn’t that principal have applied then. That they might have had a suspect or suspects but not enough material evidence to bring charges.

[Trevor Marriott]

The discussion was in relation to your point that the police hadn’t reduced the number of officers on the case which I accept of course. Your position was that if there had been a suspect then they would have arrested him and after the arrest they could have gathered together the necessary evidence to have been able to charge him and could then have reduced the number of officers.

My point is this Trevor (the one that I’ve already made) what if they couldn’t find enough evidence that would have justified charging him? When you were in the force surely every arrest didn’t result in the CPS saying “charge him.”? So why couldn’t that principal have applied then. That they might have had a suspect or suspects but not enough material evidence to bring charges.

But not having enough evidence to charge would not have prevented them from arresting a suspect on suspicion, more often than not the initial arrest is the first stage of evidence gathering process. None of the main prime suspects mentioned here was ever arrested, yet we see evidence of men stopped in the street by the police and being asked to go to police stations to help with the investigation.

The HO files and their content clearly highlight the fact that the police did not have any prime suspects, or for that matter any likely suspects otherwise, they would not have kept all those officers in Whitechapel for that length of time at great expense

So maybe its time to amend the lengthy suspect list

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

Interesting topic for a thread, Trevor.

I'm wondering if some of the extra manpower in the wake of the murders could conceivably have had more to do with the fear of social unrest at the time, rather than with the hunt for the killer.

The East End was a tinderbox of antisemitism which had been stoked by all of the Leather Apron media coverage etc, and with all of the extra scrutiny on the area (and criticism of the police) I could imagine that measures would be taken to minimise the possibility of things seriously kicking off in the East end.

[Bridewell]

Interesting topic for a thread, Trevor.

I'm wondering if some of the extra manpower in the wake of the murders could conceivably have had more to do with the fear of social unrest at the time, rather than with the hunt for the killer.

The East End was a tinderbox of antisemitism which had been stoked by all of the Leather Apron media coverage etc, and with all of the extra scrutiny on the area (and criticism of the police) I could imagine that measures would be taken to minimise the possibility of things seriously kicking off in the East end.

That's a fair point although, as the protests from senior officers on other divisions indicates, that couldn't be continued forever.

[Bridewell]

But not having enough evidence to charge would not have prevented them from arresting a suspect on suspicion, more often than not the initial arrest is the first stage of evidence gathering process. None of the main prime suspects mentioned here was ever arrested, yet we see evidence of men stopped in the street by the police and being asked to go to police stations to help with the investigation.

The HO files and their content clearly highlight the fact that the police did not have any prime suspects, or for that matter any likely suspects otherwise, they would not have kept all those officers in Whitechapel for that length of time at great expense

So maybe its time to amend the lengthy suspect list

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

You're quite right of course about arrest, then as now, often being the first step in the evidence gathering process. I'm less sure about the contention that

None of the main prime suspects mentioned here was ever arrested.

There is no record of their ever being arrested but there is always the very real possibility that one or more were arrested but the record of it no longer exists.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But not having enough evidence to charge would not have prevented them from arresting a suspect on suspicion, more often than not the initial arrest is the first stage of evidence gathering process. None of the main prime suspects mentioned here was ever arrested, yet we see evidence of men stopped in the street by the police and being asked to go to police stations to help with the investigation.

The HO files and their content clearly highlight the fact that the police did not have any prime suspects, or for that matter any likely suspects otherwise, they would not have kept all those officers in Whitechapel for that length of time at great expense

So maybe its time to amend the lengthy suspect list

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well first, you say: “more often than not…” so that’s clearly not a hard and fast rule, so how could you eliminate what could possibly have been a very small number on the basis of it? I’d then have to ask you if we have all police records still available to us for checking? If we don’t then how can you know that any particular arrest record isn’t one of those that are no longer extant? So why would they have reduced the number of police just on the grounds of having a suspicion or belief that a person might have been the killer?

Your final sentence goes back to this old point of yours where you appear to believe that we should somehow ‘recategorise’ the suspects named by ripperologists in terms of ‘person of interest,’ ‘suspect’ and ‘prime suspect.’ You remember well our previous discussions. Myself, Paul Begg and others were pulling our hair out trying to explain this to you so I really don’t want to go back there. Briefly….

We aren’t undertaking a criminal investigation. Categorising a suspect as to likeliness of guilt is clearly important for the police for obvious reasons (they have limited resources paid for by taxpayer’s money; any time wasted in following up false leads could result in someone evading justice or of lives being lost) None of those apply to us. So, if someone wants to name WG Grace as the ripper (I’m surprised no one hasn’t) it’s doesn’t affect us in any way. We can choose to discuss him or not. Then of course if we did want to re-categorise witnesses how would we do it? What criteria would we use? Would we all agree on the criteria? Would we all agree on who was a ‘person of interest’ and who was a ‘suspect?’ Even if we felt that it was a good idea (and no one does apart from you and Harry as I recall) it wouldn’t work.

No matter what I say or however many people tell you I just know that you won’t change your opinion but going over old ground will get us nowhere and we both known that your suggestion is never going to happen.