Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SPE's Worldview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Thanks Stewart. If only the file would turn up in the post!

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Special Branch

    Originally posted by A.P. Wolf View Post
    The Special Branch says:
    '
    Special branch
    The Metropolitan Police Special Irish Branch was formed in March 1883 to counter Irish 'Fenian' terrorism on mainland Britain.
    Over the years, Special Branch took on responsibility for combating a wide range of extremist and terrorist activity and the term 'Irish' was dropped from its title. Special Branch has responsibility for gathering, collating and exploiting intelligence on extremist political and terrorist activity, disseminating intelligence for operational use and assisting other Government agencies to counter threats to the security of the United Kingdom.
    The government has recently announced that Special Branch is to merge with Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch to form the counter-terrorism directorate.'
    Well done AP, the operative words being 'The Metropolitan Police...'

    The Special Branch, in all its guises, was part of the C.I.D., i.e. an operational police branch, and was composed of serving police officers. Anderson was, of course, first a civil servant at the Home Office acting as adviser on political crime (1867-1886), then he became secretary to the Prison Commissioners, a role that very much irked him as he felt it to be beneath his level of responsibility. At the end of August 1888 he became Assistant Commissioner (Crime) at Scotland Yard, taking control of all of the C.I.D., including the Special Branch. He was never a member of the Special Branch.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Undated

    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
    Very intriguing, Stewart. Any comment on the use of the singular "murder"?
    Robert, the reference is undated but I would assume that it referred to the latest murder at that time (Kelly?) and you sometimes see references in the official Whitechapel murders files to 'Whitechapel murder' used in this context. More to the point it gives a reference number '93867' almost certainly meaning that a file was commenced.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    The Special Branch says:

    '
    Special branch

    The Metropolitan Police Special Irish Branch was formed in March 1883 to counter Irish 'Fenian' terrorism on mainland Britain.
    Over the years, Special Branch took on responsibility for combating a wide range of extremist and terrorist activity and the term 'Irish' was dropped from its title. Special Branch has responsibility for gathering, collating and exploiting intelligence on extremist political and terrorist activity, disseminating intelligence for operational use and assisting other Government agencies to counter threats to the security of the United Kingdom.
    The government has recently announced that Special Branch is to merge with Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch to form the counter-terrorism directorate.'

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thank you for the generous display of that document,Mr. E. We really appreciate it.

    Its probably wishful thinking, but out of curiosity, did Strauss leave any materials to a widow or family...for further inquiry?

    This is very interesting material,Mr. E. Again...thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Very intriguing, Stewart. Any comment on the use of the singular "murder"?

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Irish Party

    In The Rise of Scotland Yard, A History of the Metropolitan Police, by Douglas G. Browne, London, Harrap, 1956, page 208, the following passage appears, apropos of the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' -

    "His identity is unknown to this hour, though definite claims to the contrary have been made, and numberless theories propounded. Sir Robert Anderson, who succeeded Monro as Assistant Commissioner, C.I.D., just after the second Whitechapel murder, says that the murderer was a low-class Polish Jew. According to Sir Basil Thomson, 'in the belief of the police he was a man who committed suicide in the Thames at the end of 1888,' and who 'had probably been at some time a medical student.' A third head of the C.I.D., Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office."

    This statement has always intrigued, not least of all because Browne was researching and writing the book in the early 1950s. The book had been started by Browne's friend Ralph Strauss who died and the book passed on to Browne for completion. In the preface Browne states "He had the generous help of the authorities at New Scotland Yard in being given access to the records without which such a work as he contemplated could not have been undertaken."

    This access to the official records was given at a time when there would be much present that later went missing. So the indicators are that there was information in the records at New Scotland Yard in the 1950s that referred to an Irish connection with the Ripper. This has resulted in much speculation as to what it may mean, but the following official reference confirms that there was indeed such a line of investigation pursued by Scotland Yard. I don't think that this reference has previously been published -



    Obviously this is of the greatest importance as it indicates the presence of a file on this subject.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks once more SPE !

    The best arguments found against the "witness,suspect,identification" can be found in the Scotland Yard Investigates book written by SPE & Mr. Rumbelow....

    Does anyone have any comments to add or enhance the discussion in regard to anything expressed by SPE which do not deviate from the theme of the Seaside/Marginalia theme?

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    SB

    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post
    Stewart,
    and the Special Branch, according to you is ....?
    No Stan, you tell me what you think it is and then we'll see if we agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Stewart,

    and the Special Branch, according to you is ....?

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Open Mind

    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Thanks SPE and indeed,I have Scotland Yard Investigates ....
    I know you have a busy schedule...so let me ask this and whenever you get a chance,please respond when possible.
    If,as you propose here, that the identification may not have ever occurred as is assumed,either in one place or the other...is there some alternative opinion you may be working on or, in fact, already have, to explain this event?
    If not at the moment,thats fine...and thank you.
    How, I do not subscribe to the mantra that 'there was a suspect, there was a witness and there was a positive identification'.

    What I believe is that we should keep an open mind to all possibilities given the information that we possess. Of course, I am not stupid enough to adhere to that line of thought if independent confirmation of the identification comes to light. Relying simply on Anderson's word and the annotations in Swanson's copy of Anderson's book simply isn't good enough in my opinion.

    No I am not working on an alternative opinion, nor do I feel that I need to explain anything, other than what is stated in what I have already written. I suggest that it is the 'Andersonites' who should be conducting intensive research in this area in order to bolster their theories.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks SPE and indeed,I have Scotland Yard Investigates ....

    I know you have a busy schedule...so let me ask this and whenever you get a chance,please respond when possible.

    If,as you propose here, that the identification may not have ever occurred as is assumed,either in one place or the other...is there some alternative opinion you may be working on or, in fact, already have, to explain this event?

    If not at the moment,thats fine...and thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Special Branch

    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post
    Stewart,
    so your argument that the handler of an anti-fenian spy was not a member of the branch devoted to anti-fenian activities?
    I'm at a loss on the above.
    Stan, it's probably an American thing as from what Tim Riordan said on his podcast I got the impression that he did not know exactly what the Special Branch was either.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Dearth

    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Not to deviate from the purpose of the thread,SPE...but in the case of Lipski's identification in the hospital,we know policemen (Sgt. Thick being one of them) were positioned at Lipski's bed and if I am not mistaken, he was affixed to the bed by handcuffs or some sort of device...which brings me to this:
    ...that the Seaside Home identification may have been nig-rigged in the same way the Lipski Identification in hospital had been. No need to answer or comment,but you just gave me a thought. Thank you.
    How, I feel that it is far from proven that any such identification took place (for which see Jack the Ripper Scotland Yard Investigates). Certainly the Lipski identification sounds a very unsatisfactory affair. Given the dearth of information, only Anderson and Swanson and they do not agree, I cannot see how we can progress any further with speculation, unless new or corroborative information from a different source comes to light.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Stewart,

    so your argument that the handler of an anti-fenian spy was not a member of the branch devoted to anti-fenian activities?

    I'm at a loss on the above.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X