Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and

[Trevor Marriott]

Neither Littlechild nor Monro ever suggested that he knew the identity of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Excuse me didn't Littlechild say he thought your old friend Tumblety was likley to have been the ripper.

[Stewart P Evans]

Neither...

...
Although Clutterbuck’s thesis is formulated around the workings of Special Branch he does pass comments in relation to certain officers who have previously been mentioned in connection with The Whitechapel murders, these being Inspector Abberline, Chief Inspector Littlechild, Sir Robert Anderson, and James Monro all of whom in later years all suggested they knew the identity of Jack the Ripper in their respective memoirs or letters.
...

Neither Littlechild nor Monro ever suggested that he knew the identity of 'Jack the Ripper'.

[Magpie]

Silly question, and forgive me if it's been asked before, but is Lindsay Clutterbuck any relation to Dorothy Clutterbuck?

[auspirograph]

Whittington-Egan

I'd like to take this chance to thank Richard Whittington-Egan, who had considered writing the foreword to my book but due to illness at the time was unable. His positive and encouraging interest in new material by this Ripperologist is appreciated.

Which is even more remarkable that his highly anticipated new and updated book has now been released and I wish him every success with it. It is a much needed antidote to the baseless and incessant speculative parlor game the Ripper has become to mainstream publishing.

[auspirograph]

Not Feigenbaum

Not Tumblety !

Well that is odd that you would go on a quest, like the man of La Mancha, in search of your suspect Feigenbaum in the pages of the Special Branch ledgers.

At least with Tumblety, we have a highly placed police source, unlike yourself, who names a previously unknown suspect for the Whitechapel murders.

The mythology of Feigenbaum you have created strikes me as akin to the theories on Deeming. Intriguing but a diversion only...

Your agenda has become quite clear now, in your quest to 'eliminate' all previous Jack the Ripper suspects, to go so far as to declare with Simon Wood and other journalistic flutter, that Jack the Ripper did not exist...all established research on the subject is in your opinion void.

And you want to replace it with...Feigenbaum??? Not a chance...

As I have said before, the Special Branch material is new and important primary source material on the subject because what really happened is just as important as who.

[auspirograph]

Incidentallay in my quest to gain access to these records the police suggested that Clutterbuck did not have permission to publish anything from these records.

Incidentally, this is another Trevor Marriott despicable, self-serving lie.

[auspirograph]

Fun Police

Who says the police can't have fun too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-E_tikSXfc

[auspirograph]

Thankyou Spiro.

You're welcome.

Ok then, if you don't mind me asking, do you have, or had, access to Clutterbuck's thesis?

I have had access to his thesis from around 2006, as I was researching the book. Copies can be obtained here:

http://www.investigatingtheterror.com/SS7-7/ClutterbuckThesis.pdf

It appears you know more about what Clutterbuck saw than is readily available, at least on Casebook.
I am wondering what else Clutterbuck might have read that could have a bearing on a broader range of theories, not just his, or yours?

Yes, I had some contact with him and discussed the book, his support is acknowledged in the book. I'm not sure why you may think that any of this has bearing on holding theories as such because his thesis and my book are more concerned with documenting information and drawing some conclusions based on the evidence.

Regarding his Ripper sources, he lists in the bibliography:

- The Jack the Ripper A to Z (1991) Fido, Begg & Skinner
- The Lodger (1995) Evans & Gainey
- The Ripper Legacy (1987) Howells & Skinner

I notice he has authored/co-authored a couple of books on the subject of terrorism. Are his observations on the 'Whitechapel Murder' content of the SB Files available to the public anywhere?

No, his views on the Whitechapel murders is limited to what is found in the thesis which is now in the public domain, and the few mentions are not thorough. Keith Skinner provided him with a copy of Monro's memoirs. He only says, "However, it is a digression from the thrust of this research and regretfully it cannot be pursued appropriately here".

The rest is history but the inclinations found in the Special Branch ledgers on the Whitechapel murders are supported with other credible sources and these I have explored further in my book.

What I think needs to be understood to place these obvious and credible sources on Jack the Ripper in context is that by 1888, according to 1887 Police Orders permanently establishing this internal division of Scotland Yard Central Office directly responsible to the Home Office and funded separately, was that it was a different organization to what it would later become; prior to WW1.

[Trevor Marriott]

So dare I ask, is the above alluding to suspicions about Tumblety?

Not Tumblety !

[Trevor Marriott]

The Thesis

The thesis is available to purchase and I would recommend it to everyone it gives a wealth of information about the workings of Special Branch during this period of time.

Incidentallay in my quest to gain access to these records the police suggested that Clutterbuck did not have permission to publish anything from these records.


[QUOTE=Wickerman;272982]Thankyou Spiro.

Ok then, if you don't mind me asking, do you have, or had, access to Clutterbuck's thesis?

It appears you know more about what Clutterbuck saw than is readily available, at least on Casebook.
I am wondering what else Clutterbuck might have read that could have a bearing on a broader range of theories, not just his, or yours?

I notice he has authored/co-authored a couple of books on the subject of terrorism. Are his observations on the 'Whitechapel Murder' content of the SB Files available to the public anywhere?ial B[

Although Clutterbuck’s thesis is formulated around the workings of Special Branch he does pass comments in relation to certain officers who have previously been mentioned in connection with The Whitechapel murders, these being Inspector Abberline, Chief Inspector Littlechild, Sir Robert Anderson, and James Monro all of whom in later years all suggested they knew the identity of Jack the Ripper in their respective memoirs or letters.

Clutterbuck specifically mentions Monro and refers to a sentence in a memorandum from the Home Secretary Henry Matthews sent in 1888 to his Private Secretary Evelyn Ruggles-Brise. That read "Stimulate the Police about the Whitechapel murders. Monro might be willing to give a hint to the CID people if necessary."

This memo seemed to suggest that Monro at the time knew more about the possible identity of Jack the Ripper than his role as “secret agent” for the home office allowed him to reveal to the detectives investigating the murders.

Clutterbuck states in his thesis that The Chief Constable’s register contains several intriguing references to at least support the contention that “special” had more than a passing interest in Jack the Ripper, but none to corroborate Frances Tumblety the new contemporary suspect that Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey had put forward in their book “The Lodger” (1995). Conversely he states that their conclusion (Evans and Gainey) that “Ripperologist’s” could no longer rely upon the writings of Sir Robert Anderson as accurate tends to echo in the comments of Superintendent Mallon of the Dublin metropolitan police some years previously (Bussey.1910).

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Spiro.

Ok then, if you don't mind me asking, do you have, or had, access to Clutterbuck's thesis?

It appears you know more about what Clutterbuck saw than is readily available, at least on Casebook.
I am wondering what else Clutterbuck might have read that could have a bearing on a broader range of theories, not just his, or yours?

I notice he has authored/co-authored a couple of books on the subject of terrorism. Are his observations on the 'Whitechapel Murder' content of the SB Files available to the public anywhere?


*****

FYI for any other interested Casebook members.

Education
Ph.D. in police and criminal justice studies, University of Portsmouth

Biography
Lindsay Clutterbuck is a research leader at RAND Europe. Clutterbuck served for 22 years as a detective officer in the Specialist Operations Department at New Scotland Yard. During that period, he worked on all aspects of counterterrorism, from covert intelligence operations and the development of national strategy and policy to contingency planning and the planning and delivery of multiagency exercises. He has contributed articles to academic journals and chapters to books on both historical and contemporary aspects of terrorism and counterterrorism. Clutterbuck holds a B.Sc. in zoology from the University of Sheffield; an M.A. in policing studies from the University of Exeter; and a Ph.D. from the University of Portsmouth, where his doctoral research examined the origins and evolution of terrorism and counterterrorism in the UK.

Research Focus: Counterterrorism; Terrorism

Previous Positions
Detective Chief Inspector, Specialist Operations Department, Metropolitan Police Service, New Scotland Yard

[auspirograph]

So dare I ask, is the above alluding to suspicions about Tumblety?

Thanks for asking Jon, no, Clutterbuck makes it quite clear that there does not appear to be mention of Tumblety in the Ledgers.

Which is a bit of a conundrum because Littlechild of course mentions "a large dossier" and Anderson is known to have requested US police sources for information on him.

In my opinion, the mention of Tumblety at all alludes to other matters of the period and investigation. As with other official primary sources on the Whitechapel murders, there are obviously gaps here too.

[Wickerman]

Williamson was the initial CID Chief Constable with Macnaghten assisting from 1889 to his appointment. Entries are also found made by Anderson, Littlechild and Swanson.

What they contain on the Whitechapel murders is summarised by Clutterbuck that it, "…does enable an outline to be constructed of an intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being 'Jack the Ripper', an alleged plot to assassinate the Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency."

So dare I ask, is the above alluding to suspicions about Tumblety?

[auspirograph]

Special Branch Index Ledgers

Hi all,

The UK Information Commissioner handed down the decision to not release the surviving Metropolitan Police Special Branch index ledgers having accepted police arguments taking into account that the material was generally and readily available with the 2002 Clutterbuck thesis. Dr. Lindsay Clutterbuck, a Chief Inspector of Scotland Yard and a counter-terrorism policy advisor, was given full access to the ledgers to research his thesis.

The police argued they had a legitimate claim to not disclose the material as it contained names of past informants and that their release would impact current investigations.

But the material on the Whitechapel murders or rather, index entries to files not known to have survived routine paper purges, is known in some depth and of sufficient detail to draw credible conclusions on an alternative and internal investigation of Jack the Ripper from 1888 to around 1892, the dates encompassing the Chief Constable's CID Register: "Special Branch".

Williamson was the initial CID Chief Constable with Macnaghten assisting from 1889 to his appointment. Entries are also found made by Anderson, Littlechild and Swanson.

What they contain on the Whitechapel murders is summarised by Clutterbuck that it, "…does enable an outline to be constructed of an intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being 'Jack the Ripper', an alleged plot to assassinate the Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency."

Elements of this outline occur in only one other known place; The Rise of Scotland Yard (1956) by Douglas Browne. The book had special access to Scotland Yard files so the two sources can confirm each other.

I have fully researched and appraised these and other supporting sources of the relevance and importance of the surviving Special Branch ledgers to the Whitechapel murders and their history in my recent book.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...nd-black-magic

It is the only book available to have examined them in depth and gives a complete background to their existence and importance on the contemporary police investigation of Jack the Ripper and, historical impact on subsequent and public senior police statements.

Thanks

[auspirograph]

Dpp

Or why the Home Office would for the first time issue grant of a Royal pardon to any accomplice in the crime.

Could that not simply be to cover a change of policy?

Ministers and officials dislike (and undoubtedly disliked) reversing a firmly stated policy - it makes them look foolish and undermines confidence in other similar decisions.

After saying for so many weeks and so adamantly - no rewards - they offer one (in extremis and the face of mounting pressure) but mask it asbeing directed to an "accomplice". It would also allow them not to reverse their wider policy or set a precedent for future cases.

There may have been other, or additional reasons, but the one I have stated works for me.

Phil H

This is an interesting aspect of the Whitechapel murders that rarely gets discussed. Important as it happened during the events and presumably as witness reports, none of which were clear or distinct, were still fresh to the police.

As any subsequent theory or reminiscence on Jack the Ripper relies heavily on contemporary reports and sources, the importance of direct official details cannot be gainsaid.

Here is an extract from the book which presents new and additional official detail to events on the murder of Mary Kelly:



On the November 23, 1888, Secretary of State Henry Matthews, elaborated in the House of Commons: “I should be quite prepared to offer a pardon in the earlier Whitechapel murders if the information before me had suggested that such an offer would assist in the detection of the murderer. In the case of Kelly there were certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases, and which made it more probable that there were other persons who, at any rate after the crime, had assisted the murderer.”101 Detective Inspector Henry Cox of the City of London Police in 1906 gave more details of the ongoing investigation in this press extract: “We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail.”102

It is not clear what the Home Secretary was referring to in “certain circumstances which were wanting in the earlier cases.” No evidence exists in known police reports to prove one way or another what that information might be—perhaps about persons who had assisted the murderer after the crime? Whatever it was, it was strong enough to gain assurance of a royal pardon in the event that Jack the Ripper was apprehended and convicted, or perhaps to allay the fears of an electorate that was clamoring for results. Sir Charles Warren had in the meantime resigned and James Monro now held the post of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. However, there were some unusual circumstances in the procedures adopted in the aftermath of the Kelly murder. Despite continued police surveillance on the streets of East End London, her murder was regarded as the last in the series.

The standard procedure of the Home Office, though it was not a legal requirement, requested the coroner to submit inquest depositions to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and, if necessary, to the House of Commons.103 There was no need to have an accused at the inquest stage, as an inquest was not a criminal trial. The unsolved status of the Whitechapel murders was recorded with the DPP as such. These were yearly statements, and there exists an anomaly for the murders of Mary Kelly and Catherine Eddowes. The director of public prosecution returns for the relevant Whitechapel murder inquiries and inquests are as follows104:

DPP 1888: Includes entries on Emma Smith, Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman and Elizabeth Stride.

DPP 1889: Includes entries on Rose Mylett,105 application by E.K. Larkins,106 Alice McKenzie,107 Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchen St. murder.

DPP 1890: Has no inquest entries but includes an application by a J.E. Harris, solicitor, Leaden- hall Street on information relating to the Whitechapel murders.108

DPP 1891: Entry on the charging of Thomas Sadler for the murder of Francis Coles and his discharge.

There are no further entries after 1891; nor is there any record of the coroner’s submission to the DPP of depositions on the inquests of Eddowes and Kelly. The absence of an entry for Eddowes might be explained by the murder occurring in the City Police district, though the 1887 Coroners Act request of the Home Office seems to apply. These anomalies may not be significant under informal Victorian arrangements but are worth noting.

However, in view of the confidential nature that seems to have prevailed in the deepening police investigations of Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, it is odd that details of the inquests of Eddowes and Kelly were not recorded or submitted by the coroner to the DPP as usual. Though the Kelly inquest was shorter than prior inquests, which led to conjectures of an official cover-up, the request for depositions noted with the DPP were not formally part of the inquest proceedings. Nevertheless, the main details of the inquests of Eddowes and Kelly were reported widely in the press.

The absence may also be explained with pending police inquiries prompted with information referred to by the Home Secretary granting a royal pardon in hope of securing the confession and arrest of a suspect. Anderson had commissioned fresh medical reports from Central Office police surgeon Dr. Thomas Bond, and this is likely why the inquest of Mary Kelly, which Bond did not attend, was shortened with depositions not sent to the DPP.

Coroners were granted powers as magistrates under the Coroners Acts, as were the commissioners under Police Acts, as noted in Anderson’s memoirs.109 Though public inquests were independent and conducted at the discretion of the coroner, the Attorney General had the final say if they progressed to a trial, or he could order another inquest if coroners failed their duties. A requirement for coroners to send inquest depositions was mandatory if the DPP notified the coroner that he was undertaking criminal proceedings.110 This did not happen in the Whitechapel murders. The situation indicated that Scotland Yard was pursuing fresh leads but, without clear witnesses or clues, there was no firm evidence to prosecute.