|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
The cops must have known the ID of JTR
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
The cops must have known the ID of JTR
Author: John Mahan
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 12:45 am |        | Hi everyone.
it seems to me that the Police must have had a good idea who JTR was or they would not have called off the extra security provided to the White Chaple area so quickly after the last murder.
Your thoughts! |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 08:48 am | | | I think Sir Charles Warren knew who Jack was , and I believe Sir Charles Warren was involved in the murders in some way. It has always seemed very suspicious that he resigned from his position on the night MJK was muredered , its as if his work was done and that was it. Its also suspicious how he had the Goulston Street writing erased so quickly - had Jack got too arrogant and left behind an incriminating clue ( not necessarily in the text of the message ) which Warren realised he had to get rid of ? Anyway , good point John. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 04:38 pm | | No, Simon, I am sorry. Not a good point.
John, I would refer you to the comments by Stewart Evans under the "Dissatisfaction with Discovery Channel" topic; the scaling back of Whitechapel patrols is discussed there in great detail. Suffice it to say it was not done because the police "knew" who the Ripper was.
Simon: The immediate cause of Sir Charles Warren's resignation was an article he wrote for "Murray's Magazine" defending the Metropolitan Police. After the article appeared, he was told by Home Secretary Henry Matthews that he was forbidden to do such a thing without the express consent of the HO. Warren replied that had he known he would not be allowed to defend his men from attacks, he would not have accepted the post of Commissioner. He offered his resignation (incidentally, the day BEFORE Kelly's murder) and it was accepted. It had nothing - I repeat, NOTHING - to do with the death of Mary Jane Kelly.
With regards to the Goulston Street writing; I hate to sound petulant, but this is the third time I've reponded to this point, and it seems that nobody listens or can be bothered to check things out for themselves. The writing was not erased "quickly" by any means; it was several hours before Warren was even told of its existence.
At a meeting with Superintendant Arnold, Warren was briefed on the events of the "double event." Arnold then told Warren about the "Juwes" message, adding that he had a man standing by to erase it because of possible anti-Semitic sentiment. Now mark this point - the offer to get rid of the writing came from Arnold first, NOT from Warren! In any event, because the filthy piece of Eddowes' apron had been found beneath the writing, it was a reasonable assumption the writing was from the hand of the Ripper himself. Warren realised quite rightly that the decision to erase the writing must not be made by a subordinate, and so he set off to see it for himself. He was quite right to do so, as Goulston Street was Met territory.
Warren arrived at Wentworth Model Dwellings and observed the message. He then spent the next 30 minutes (mark that, please) discussing what ought to be done. A number of suggestions, including covering up the writing, erasing the word "Juwes" and blocking off the archway were proposed, but in the end Warren - realising that his primary duty was to preserve public peace - decided to have the offensive writing removed. He then asked several officers standing around to COPY the writing down for future reference; please mark that!
After sufficient copies had been made, the writing was erased. Warren then returned to his office and made out a report to the Home Office, explaining his actions and including a copy of the writing on the wall.
This is not secret information. You will find the events I have described above in almost any decent Ripper book, and Warren's HO report is still in the files. I cannot for the life of me fathom why people are so quick to jump to a "conspiracy" angle when perfectly reasonable explanations are in front of one.
I am not angry with you, Simon, as after all you have stated you are a novice to the case. I am simply tired of Warren's reasonable actions being interpreted as support for his being a Government or Masonic tool. It just isn't so.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 08:48 am | | | Please be tolerant Chris as I am a novice I'm afraid , and in trying to promote a controversial theory as I am it is very easy to go off track.At least I'm not the only one to have got this wrong , it is a common myth about the case and I think I got carried away with my conspiracy theories in replying here. Your criticism is very useful and I am glad of it ; with the Sickert theory I am probably going to need all the help I can get. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 09:39 am | | Simon - I apologise if I sounded too nasty in my reply; it's certainly not my intention to browbeat anyone! You will find, the longer you study the Ripper case, that most devotees of a conspiracy angle either rehash the same old disproven arguments or try to buttress their claims with one of two thoughts - that police procedure during the case was somehow unorthodox, or that lack of evidence for a particular point is proof of that point. Neither argument lends itself to reasoned discussion, though the first is a little easier to argue against than the latter! :-)
In any event, you should familiarise yourself with the arguments against the Sickert story. If you still believe in it afterwards, you will at least have bothered to research both sides of the story, and that is all to the good. If there is anything I can do to help you, please ask.
CMD |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 04:42 pm | | G'day All,
As a matter of interest:
When I discussed the Ripper with a policeman friend of mine and asked his views on the subject, he was convinced that the truth involves a 'conspiracy'. It was clear that he didn't know much about the case!
Leanne! |
Author: Diana Louise Comer
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 07:09 pm | | | While I am sceptical of conspiracy theories, isn't it true that sometimes the police can know perfectly well who the perpetrator of a crime is, but they can't do anything about it because there is no evidence that will stand up in court? |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 06:05 am | | Yes, Diana, it is perfectly true that that happens (quite often if what Stewart has said here before is true). Covering up the identity of a known criminal is an entirely different matter, though!
All the Best
Guy |
Author: John Mahan
Monday, 21 February 2000 - 10:13 pm | | Christopher,
I too am a novice, perhaps jumping too quickly at conspiracy theories myself. I still find it hard to accept that Sir Charles Warren would remove what should have been such an important clue before a photograph could be made. Knowing that he thought about and discussed removing the message for about half an hour clearly indicates he knew it to be of some importance. Why not just cover it up and wait for a police photographer? It could then be removed and the clue preserved on film.
During this time was he not in hot water with the local press for the lack of police action in this case. This just seems to support the press claim that not enough was being done. Here he is faced with an important clue and he has it removed. I find it hard to accept this done just to protect the public. I must be missing something. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 23 February 2000 - 10:42 am | | John -
One of the many difficulties with the Ripper case is that we now have only words committed to paper by the participants. Whereas, for example, in 1888 you might have been able to speak with Sir Charles Warren himself and ask the reasoning behind his erasure of the Goulston Street writing (GS), in 2000 you can only read his report to the Home Office. I shall quote extensively from it, as it pertains to the discussion and it is important that we read Warren's own words. Here they are, from file HO 144/221/A49301C:
"On the 30th September on hearing of the Berners Street Murder after visiting Commercial Street Station I arrived at Leman Street Station shortly before 5 a.m. and ascertained from Superintendant Arnold. . .[there] was some writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews, and which Mr Arnold with a view to prevent serioous disorder proposed to obliterate, and had sent down an Inspector with a sponge for that purpose telling him to await his arrival. -
"I considered it desirable that I should decide this matter myself, as it was one involving so great a responsibility whether any action was taken or not. - I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scen of the murder: it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London. -
". . .The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to any body in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once. -
"A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed, but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be torched (in which from my own observation I entirely concurred) I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.
". . .I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word "Juewes" on account of a newspaper asserting this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. . .It may be realised therefore if the safety of the Jews in Whitechapel could be considered to be jeopardised 13 days after the murder by the question of the spelling of the word Jews, what might have happened to the Jews in that quarter had that writing been left intact."
And there it is. It is difficult (and I am prey to it all the time), but we must fight against the hubris that because we live in the 21st century we know more than those before us. We can sit comfortably in our chairs second-guessing Warren all we like; after all, we know how the story played out. Remember, though, that Warren was there at the time and was depending not only on himself but on the considered opinion of professionals around him (viz., the "Report" above). Warren may have been quick to jump to conclusions, and no doubt was stung by press criticism, but he did what he thought best at the time.
After the GS became public knowledge, there was no overt anti-Semitic demonstration. We are not, however, justified in reasoning backwards from that to say "see? Warren had nothing to be afraid of." As you read more about the Ripper case, John, you will learn about Jack Pizer and the "Leather Apron" scare at the time of the Nichols and Chapman murders. There was a great deal of scurrilous Jew-baiting in the popular press, and this feeling was mirrored in some of the population. During the Chapman investigation, many people suspected of having something to do with her death had to be brought to police stations under heavy guard or incognito, because of the public feeling. Add to this the suspicion of the Jews of Whitechapel because of their "outsider" qualities, and you have a recipe for disaster. Because no riots occurred after the GS was known is no guarantee they would not have happened.
There was, as you rightly say, a great deal of press criticism of the police. This, however, proceeded from a number of factors, not least from impotent anger. Such things as press conferences and press statements as we know them from our experiences with modern police work simply did not exist. The press were not allowed access to any of the crime scenes, and it was not Met policy to grant interviews (Abberline was an exception, but after the Chapman murder his superiors appeared to clamp down on him, and he was never quite as garrulous with the Gentlemen of the Press afterwards). The police would not trust the press, and they, in turn, sniped at the ranking officers. In the case of Warren, most of the charges levelled against him were based on the fact that he was a military man heading a civilian organisation. He was regarded as rigid and narrow-minded, seeing everything in military terms (for which he cannot be blamed, after all), and not considered an ideal fellow to head the Met during such a critical time. It is interesting to speculate what sort of treatment Warren might have received had there never been a Jack the Ripper, and all that could be laid to his door "Bloody Sunday."
Should Warren have had the GS photographed? Probably, although I do not see it would have advanced the investigation appreciably. Perhaps the GS and the "Dear Boss" letter might have been compared, but beyond that, I do not see what good preservation of the writing might have done. There would still be claims of "coverup" after all.
Remember that the ONLY reason the GS is considered to have any validity as a clue is because a swatch of Catherine Eddowes' apron was found nearby. It might have been thrown there by wonderful happenstance, placed there by malevolent design or carried there by a roaming animal (as my friend Bob Hinton has suggested). The apron thus validates the handwriting, and it is only because the GS is so cryptic that it can be shoehorned into the Ripper story. Suppose, for argument, the apron piece had been found beneath a sign noting there were rooms to let in Batty Street. Would we then say this must have been a clue left by the Ripper to tease the police with a hint as to his lodgings? I doubt it.
Please don't think I am trying to dismiss your thoughts out of hand; in many ways, I too am a mere tyro regarding the Whitechapel Murders. Warren's actions seem sinister or dunderheaded to us in retrospect. To many (though not all) of his contemporaries, his actions were seen as prudent. Our view of Warren is coloured by Stephen Knight, "Murder by Decree," "In Search of JTR" and all other sort of popular translations of the case. In the case of GS, we must, I think, accept that Warren acted in good faith, no matter how much we decry his actions. To do otherwise is a slur on a man who did his best with a terrifyingly new situation for which he was ill-prepared.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Colin David Goodman
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 10:46 am | | Hi,
I'm new here so if this has been posted before, I apologise.
Even in the 1880's there must have been "serial killers" before JtR, so what was SO different that they were not able to locate and catch him?
I know there was a lack of evidence but I find it difficult to believe that they couldn't catch him. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 03 March 2000 - 11:02 am | | | I don't think there was a serial killer in the modern sense before Jack the Ripper : before Jack murders were commited for usually clearly defined reasons. For example the 1811 Ratcliffe Highway murders were pretty gruesome , but the motive was robbery even though the crimes were committed with extreme brutality. The Ripper murders seem to have been commited for no other reason than pathological hatred , of prostitutes or women. There are of course many other factors , but I think the lack of an obvious motive severely hindered the police in their investigations. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 05:32 am | | | To add to this : there was no apparent connection between the victims and their murderer. In around 70 percent of successfully solved cases in which a woman is murdered , it has been found that the victim knew her killer , however slightly. The police could not prove this was so in the Ripper murder cases however. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 06 March 2000 - 04:27 pm | | | Which I think argues against the canonical victims at least knowing each other, certainly in the sense that the death of one must inevitably lead to the next. If all five (for the sake of general argument)had their killer known to each of them, surely he must have been a consummate nonentity indeed not to have been dredged up by the police in their questioning? |
Author: Carl Dodd
Tuesday, 05 September 2000 - 02:50 pm | | | So far, I haven't seen enough information which would demonstrate to me that there might have been a conspiracy anywhere. I am open to the idea but the evidence is lacking. Where I am really amazed is that there hasn't been a whole lot of information released about what Queen Victoria did or wanted to do about JtR. Through reading history books I always got the impression that Queen Victoria was a powerful woman who would not have stood for JtR running amok in HER REALM. From what I've read about her, she would have taken some sort of firm action about him. I get this mental picture of her going down to White Chapel and trying to lure him out so that she can use brass knuckles on him in revenge. I know that some of the files involving Queen Victoria are still under lock and key. Still and all, I'd love to know what she really did about JtR. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 10 September 2000 - 12:54 pm | | You are right about Queen Vic. being concerned about the Ripper crimes. But I have to think that she had to put some perspective to it. Her concerns were far reaching, all the international troubles and in-house politics would take up much of her time. And as we know eventually she made some suggestions to the authorities as to where to look for this miscreant. She then did show some concern when, I suppose, she realized that the Home Office & Scotland Yard were stalled, in their investigations.
As for conspiracy, this is purely in the realm of speculation, and likely will remain there for some time yet.
Dont expect to read anything of Old Vic. searching out the alley's and slums of the East End. :-)
She had power over her ministers to ensure this was done, afterall she was 'upper class' the kind of upbringing that makes you get others to do the work, you sit back & give instructions.
Although she had concerns for her realm, her concerns may have been from a political perspective. She was no Dr Bernardo, if she was concerned about the poverty & slums she would have ended it right there. But the truth is, the social conditions were low on anyone's list of priorities. Only when it hit the headlines due to Jacks work, and other nations abroad were reading of the slum conditions on the front page of the 'Times' was anyone bothered about doing anything about it.
Incidently, I see no reason to think that the police knew the I.D. of Jack the Ripper. |
Author: Jim Kay
Saturday, 16 September 2000 - 09:50 am | | Dear All
It appears to me that the Police wish us to believe they knew the identity of JTR to help salvage their own reputations (particulary exaggerated claims they have made in their memoirs).
I believe that shorly after the murder of Mary Kelly, some event took place that convinced the investigating officers that the killer is out of harms way i.e the suicide of Druitt or the placing in an asylum of a local Polish Jew or Tumbelty leaving for the US. But due to the lack of evidence against such persons and the fact that these murders ended in London, they put 2+2 together, came up with 5, and satisfied themselves that the case was closed.
Let us not forget that the Police have argued amongst themselves as much as any theorists or historians. Abberline believed the killer was Chapman, Swanson/Anderson believed it was a local Polish Jew named Kosminski, Macnaghten believed it was Druitt, Littlechild was in favour of Tumblety. And it just goes on.
The above, to me, proves the Police had ideas as whom the killer MIGHT be, but it does not go beyond that. If they knew who the killer was, surely he would have been prosecuted and/or sectioned as a lunatic and the case officially closed?
The fact that Police officers (of all ranks and importance) have come up with totally different theories in their articles and memoirs, shows that they were not, as a law enforcement body, confident, united or even consistent as to the identity of the killer.
It convinces me, with all due respect to the Police, that they were chasing shadows and clutching at straws and that JTR may quite possibly be someone we have not even heard of yet.
Jim K |
Author: Penelope Vilela
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 11:15 pm | | | I believe they had a very good idea who the killer was. It is for us to try and find out why they did not do anything about it. The gentleman may have been important. Remember these were only prostitutes. The police may have surmised that it was not worth ruining a good family or political pressure may have been applied. It seems very strange to me that they would stop the investigation so quickly without knowing the murderer. They knew and they didn't want anyone else to find out! |
Author: Jon
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 10:37 am | | Ah, Penelope the conspiracist :-)
As I am sure you know by now, each police official had his own opinion on who Jack the Ripper was.
This is as good indication as you can get, that they had no real idea.
Abberline, one of the more down to earth officials stated in 1892:
"Theories! we were almost lost in theories; there were so many of them"
Also his opinions were published in the Pall Mall Gazette (1903?):
"You can state almost emphatically, that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was 15 years ago. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end out of such a mystery, if only for their own credit"
Even if we accept a little pomp with his "impossible", we at least can understand that he was still in touch with all his old friends at the Yard. And as such very likely privey to 'rumours' about any suspicions about the killers identity.
Regards, Jon |
Author: GARY ONDREJ DANKO
Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 08:09 am | | I have read all the above comments with great interest, I would suggest that for all those claiming to be novices of the case, that you purchase a copy of "The Jack the Ripper A to Z" by Paul Begg, Martin Fido & Keith Skinner.
It is very tempting to get drawn towards the conspirary theories I should know I was enthralled when I read The Final Solution as a twelve year old it is a ripping good yarn, pardon the pun.
However, in recent years research has disproven these theories. I myself came to the end of my tolerance of the Sickert theory after reading Melvin Fairclough's "The Ripper and the Royals".
The subject of the Jack the Ripper murders has changed, yes, some of the mystery may have been taken away, however, now we must focus on the facts, and what police officails at the time were saying.
I believe there is more information regarding the Swanson Marginalia out there and more undiscovered records regarding suspects which are lying in places waiting to be discovered.
If we truly wish to ever solve this case, or at least get nearer to the truth it is important that all those passionate about it move in the same direction regarding the research. It is imperative that we analyse this case in the cold light of day.
Books such as the A-Z lead the way, passionate but objective.
Regards to all
Gary.D. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 December 2000 - 10:17 am | | Absolutely Gary
And coupled with the A-Z (which needs an update), is Sugdens 'history', and now Evans & Skinner's 'Ulimate', they are all, in my opinion, required reading for a meaningful discussion.
Not to forget Fido's, 'Crimes, Detection & Death', Begg's 'Uncensored facts' & Rumbelows' 'Complete Casebook'.
Welcome, and best regards, Jon |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 21 May 2001 - 11:51 pm | | If PC Steve White's description was too close for comfort would his information be withheld and not disseminated? Were there orders from higher up for White to remain quiet?
Robeer |
Author: Jacunius
Monday, 11 June 2001 - 01:57 am | | Sorry Robeer you may need to elaborate on what you are asking for exactly.
I believe however, if there was any cop at all to know who JTR was, it would certainly have been Robert Anderson the head of the C.I.D. Another cop I believe to have possibly caught Jack himself, was P.C Robert Spicer. Unfortunately, Spicer on the order from his superiors had to let his suspect go!
yours
faithfully,
Jacunius. |
Author: subliminal
Tuesday, 12 February 2002 - 07:00 pm | | Did Warren become a missionary and leave the country?
I have heard that a high ranking officer possibly him. was payed off and forced to leave the country, as his life was in danger if he stayed, by the home secretary. He knew the idenity of the killer who had royal links and was told not to speak or else he would be murdered.
Yes I am a novice but this info is from a very reliable source. Who was a little sketchy on details but i beleive to be true. They do not want to go public with all the info as the feel it is too sensitive |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 13 February 2002 - 11:46 am | | Hi subliminal:
You have already been told on another board that there was no high-ranking police officer at the time of the murders who then became a missionary. It certainly was not Sir Charles Warren, who on his resignation on 8 November 1888, went back to his army career. He served later as a general in the Boer War.
Best regards
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
