Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  Clutterbuck even gives examples of informants including their names and what officers they had worked for, and how much they had been paid. I was taken aback by all of this. The Special Branch in the Butterworth appeal case had only chosen to exhibit 20 pages from the ledgers and had stated that there was nothing sensitive contained in those pages. This is clearly not the case and goes to support my belief that the Butterworth appeal tribunal was misled by evidence given by the police.

  The publishing of this material in Clutterbuck’s thesis clearly contradicts their argument that the identity of informants should be protected at all times. The police knew about this thesis and its contents and if they were that concerned they could and should have taken steps through the legal system to have the thesis withdrawn or even edited by Clutterbuck. The same should apply to the material Felicity Lowde published, which is at the time of writing still shown on her website blog.

  Having viewed the aforementioned register in redacted form there is one entry made by Littlechild, which as previously stated sets out the name of a suspect for Jack the Ripper. Should my appeal to have this information be made public be successful then it will be of great interest to see if Tumblety is one of the names mentioned.

  Whilst on the subject of police officers naming suspects years later, I refer to likely suspect George Chapman aka Severin Klosowski. It wasn’t until after the arrest of Chapman in 1903 that Chief Inspector Abberline voiced his opinion on Chapman as being a likely suspect for Jack the Ripper. By that time fifteen years had passed since the last “Ripper” killing and the killer still had not been caught.

  Abberline was no doubt still in close contact with other senior officers at Scotland Yard. If he felt so strongly about Chapman being the Ripper then while Chapman was awaiting execution why were arrangements not made for Chapman to be visited and questioned about the Whitechapel murders? This is basic standard police practice and still is the case today. After all, following the arrest and conviction of William Bury another person put forward as a likely Ripper suspect who was arrested in 1889 in Dundee for murdering his wife. Abberline went to Dundee to interview him, so this highlights Abberline’s awareness of visiting and interviewing condemned murderers.

  In contradiction of all of the above, police officers who in later years made public their opinions as to whom Jack the Ripper was, Major Henry Smith who was acting commissioner for the City of London police in 1888 who investigated the murder of Eddowes, published his autobiography in 1910 titled, “From Constable to Commissioner” in that book he clearly states that the police did not have any knowledge as to the identity of the Jack the Ripper.

  I did however uncover another interesting article on the Ripper murders published in the Police Review magazine in 1913. The article was an interview with another retired senior police officer Chief Inspector Henry Moore who was directly involved in investigating the murders. The relevant quote from that interview relating to the Ripper investigation is, “Well so far as I could make out he was a mad foreign sailor, who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship, and remembered nothing about them.” He does not elaborate on how he came to form that opinion but it certainly does add much corroboration to the Feigenbaum theory.

  In addition to all the work I conducted into the register and ledgers I also found out that there were still in existence a large quantity of letters sent between Henry Matthews who was home secretary at the time and Prime Minister Lord Salisbury.

  These letters are held in the private collection of the current Lord Salisbury in the archives at Hatfield House the family home of Lord Salisbury. I made an initial request to view them but this was refused. The reason given was the fact that they are private letters and not for public viewing.

  The chief archivist at Hatfield House is Robin Harcourt Williams who had been most helpful in the early stages of my investigation. Eventually we struck a compromise. Robin agreed to read the letters and would inform me if there was any relevant information on the Ripper or any Ripper connection to the Fenians. He read the letters and told me they contained no mention of anything connected to the Ripper or the suggestion of any Fenian involvement. I have to take Robin on trust and as he has been helpful in the past I have no reason to suggest that he has been untruthful in his reply. It does go to show that there are still documents in existence from 1888, which have not seen the light of day. I wonder what others there are, who has them, and what they may reveal should they ever be discovered and made public.

  CHAPTER ELEVEN

  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION TRIBUNAL HEARING PART 1

  I subsequently lodged an appeal with the information commissioners against the decisions made by the police to refuse me access to the ledgers and the register. That appeal was lodged in June 2010. I provided the commissioners with new documents and evidence to support the appeal, which was based on the public interest factor and the failure of the commissioners to notify Butterworth of the previous tribunal hearing, with a request that the tribunal’s decision in that case be set aside.

  On November 1st 2010 I received a decision notice from the information commissioners. This notice upheld all the decisions made by the police previous. Again the Butterworth decision was cited for the commissioners refusing my appeal and disregarded all the other issues I had raised.

  In an attempt to undermine my appeal process the Metropolitan Police stated they were prepared to release to me the unredacted details of the specific entries in the register relating to Jack the Ripper and the Whitechapel murders which I had previously identified. Needless to say I accepted their offer but it was still my intention to pursue my appeal to gain full and unrestricted access to the register and the ledgers.

  The next part of the appeals process was with the Information Appeals Tribunal. I then lodged a further appeal against the information commissioner’s decision notice with them. I requested a full appeal hearing before a judge. I felt that I could justifiably put forward many reasons and produce sufficient evidence to show why I should be granted the right to appeal and subsequently be granted a full tribunal hearing in an attempt to overturn the decisions made by both the police and the information commissioners.

  So the die had been cast it was now all or nothing and it wasn’t very long before I would see exactly what a monumental task I faced. The first setback was the tribunal appeal judge having read my appeal notice against the decision made by the information commissioners asked the Metropolitan Police if they wanted to be joined in this appeal to which they stated they readily accepted the invitation.

  The information commissioners responded to my appeal notice in which they set out the reasons why my appeal should not even be heard. They made an application for my appeal to be struck out at that early stage of the proceedings, their application was as follows and also endorsed by the solicitor representing the police:

  “The Commissioner submits that there are no grounds to overturn the Decision Notice and he invites the Tribunal to dismiss this appeal. Further, the Commissioner contends that this appeal possesses no realistic prospects of succeeding and he invites the Tribunal to strike out this appeal.”

  I responded with the following:

  “The public interest is an important factor in my request for access to the documents. I should therefore be afforded the opportunity to present what I believe to be overwhelming evidence in support of this. None of which was before the previous tribunal.

  “I would also suggest that there are many grounds for the original decision to be overturned. These have been documented in my appeal notice. In addition I will be producing new evidence, which will not only corroborate these grounds, but will introduce new issues surrounding them.

  “For the commissioner to say my appeal has no realistic chance of succeeding is very presumptuous after all at this time he nor the additional party (police) will be aware of the total strength of the evidence I have in support of my appeal. I would suggest
that perhaps the commissioner should at least wait until he views the evidence in its totality. It then may be the case that he and the additional party may wish to withdraw their objections to my appeal, and offer a compromise. In view of the aforementioned matters discussed and my comments I would respectfully ask the judge to dismiss the commissioner’s objections outright.”

  The tribunal judge having reviewed the submissions from both myself and the information commissioners and the police issued a ruling in my favour that ruling being:

  “I have read the Notice of Appeal and accompanying papers, the IC’s response, Mr Marriott’s reply dated 14th December 2010 and the decision in the First Appeal and have decided not to grant the application.

  “I am not bound by the decision of another Tribunal, in contrast to the IC who may be obliged to follow the decision of a Tribunal. Considering all the information before me I have decided that the appeal should be heard and I do not accept that it has no reasonable prospect of succeeding. In coming to this decision I note that the Tribunal in the First Appeal and the IC’s decisions and response appear to have applied a qualified exemption as if it is absolute.”

  The next stage in this long and complicated process would be a directions hearing. This would be the first test as both the Metropolitan Police and the Information commissioners would be represented by barristers. I decided not to engage legal representation as I felt my knowledge of all the facts surrounding these issues would be easier for me to present to the tribunal first-hand than to bring in a fresh face who I would have to brief thoroughly. Furthermore, there was also the cost of paying for legal representation, which would be far beyond my means.

  I then set about preparing the appeal in full. I was fortunate to have the valuable assistance of two highly experienced Ripper researchers, Simon Wood based in California and Phillip Carter based in Norway and an expert archive researcher Sarah Minney. The first step was to try to obtain evidence to negate the main issues I felt the other parties would seek to rely on. These revolved around the issues of informants, which I have previously mentioned.

  The first issue related to the police stating that it was their responsibility to protect the identity of informants above and beyond their lifetime. I was prepared to concede part of this, which mentions the need to protect the identity of informants. However, it is a fact that the names of alleged informants contained within the ledgers and register are made up of surnames and pseudonyms going back 125 years thereby in my opinion making it almost impossible to positively identify them in any event.

  In Clutterbuck’s thesis he goes to great lengths to detail the number of informants used by Special Branch during the lifespan of the register and documents 1888-1894 these total 85 of which only 13 are shown in 1888. However, it should be noted that some of the same informants were used by Special Branch over many years so the total figure shown does not represent the number of actual informants. This is a drop in the ocean considering the 36,000 entries which make up the ledgers and the register.

  No matter what assurances the police give and what they may tell us they cannot fully guarantee that at some time in the present or in the future the details of an informant will not be disclosed. If that does happen then some harm may fall upon the informant as a result.

  Examples where the details of an informant could be disclosed are firstly with regards to the Freedom of Information Act, which in some cases names could be made public, as would be the case in my appeal. There have been instances in the past in criminal trials where judges can order the police to disclose details of an informant. The police would now say that they would rather abandon a prosecution than risk the identity of an informant being disclosed. I think this view would be judged on a case-by-case basis.

  In these two examples the police would suggest that the revealing of their details could result in harm falling upon the informant. I fully accept that, however there is another concern that the police would be aware of, as would be the informant, which the police would have no control over.

  That concern would be if the person or persons subject to the information given by the informant were to find out via their own means and methods, then harm may still fall upon the informant. This is a common occurrence and there is nothing the police can do to prevent that other than to suggest to the informant that they go into hiding or move to a new location. In some extreme cases the police are in a position to offer the informant a new identity and a new life in another country.

  Good old-fashioned investigative work would soon prove fruitful. Sarah Minney found in The National Archives in Kew a Commonwealth Office document number CO 904/183. This was titled “Royal Irish Constabulary Register of Informants” and covers the time period 1883-1889. At that time the Royal Irish Constabulary (RIC) came under the jurisdiction of the British Government.

  The register is exactly what it says it is a register of informants used at the time. There were 106 names in the register covering a period 1887-1891, some of which, as in the Special Branch ledgers, show that they are reoccurring. Nevertheless that equates to 21 being used per year as against three being used per year from the Special Branch registers and ledgers. None of the entries had been redacted.

  Some of the names are obviously proper names whereas others are clearly pseudonyms, or simply surnames. The register in some cases clearly outlines the specific information given by particular informants and how much they were paid.

  I have to ask why if such a document as this is freely available in the public domain, why the Special Branch register and ledgers are also not similarly available?

  Could any of those informants from the RIC register be identified after all these years given the passage of time? I would imagine that the policy of the Royal Irish Constabulary was the same as the Special Branch policy. Whoever has examined this register before sending it to the archives has obviously applied an unwritten but accepted 100-year rule for public disclosure.

  Sarah Minney was still scouring The National Archives for further evidence, which soon came to light in the form of another important British government file relating to informants. This was a Home Office file numbered HO317/00038 and titled “Activities of named paid informants against Irish Secret Societies 1892-1910”. This is a 76-page document made up of letters and correspondence between the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury, and other senior government officials and high-ranking British intelligence officers of the day. This file is also in unredacted form save for the odd named redaction, which does not affect the overall content and reading of the whole file.

  This file contains the names of without question a number of the highest profile informers working for the British government during the years stated in relation to the Fenian conflict and in particular the Phoenix Park murders namely Theo Farrell and a man named Fenning aka William Lammie. Also mentioned in this file are references to Patrick Tynan who it is alleged masterminded the Phoenix Park murders in Dublin in 1883.

  At some time in the past this file was classified but again it seems that due to the passage of time it is no longer classed as such. In this file there are letters from an informant Theo Farrell to various senior figures who in turn forwarded them to even more senior officials. Farrell, although a high profile informant, in later years fell upon hard times and can be seen to be almost begging the government for money to support his family. His name and address clearly appear on those letters.

  Both of the aforementioned documents contain much more detailed information about informants than the Special Branch register and ledgers. They have also been freely available for some considerable time. Whoever has deemed them suitable to go to the archives has obviously also worked on the unwritten 100-year disclosure rule.

  Whilst scouring the archives I came across another interesting Home Office file numbered HO 144/221A49301G. This related 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 tim
e after the Mary Kelly murder in November 1888 the police operation in Whitechapel was wound down. Some researchers 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 Kosminski being caged in a lunatic asylum.

  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. In fact they were not wound down for some considerable time even after the Kelly murder.

  In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a compliment of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions 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 other killer or killers. So that must now rule Druitt, Tumblety and Ostrog out totally, as well as weakening the case against Kosminski even more because had Kosminski been the killer as suggested by Anderson and Swanson in later years then what explanation can there be for all the extra money which was spent on having police patrols in Whitechapel up until and well after March 1890.

  It raises another question, if Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson all knew and believed Kosminski were the killer then why was James Sadler suspected of being Jack the Ripper in 1891 following the murder of Frances Coles in Ripper-like fashion? Swanson was personally involved in this case. Then there is Thomas Cutbush in 1891 and William Grant Grainger in 1895, the latter inflicted abdominal wounds to a prostitute who actually survived. Both were suspected by police at the time as being the Ripper.