Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  CHAPTER 14

  THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

  The three weeks waiting for the tribunal’s decision stretched to six weeks and then the day of reckoning came on July 4th. I received the decision notice which indicated I had lost the appeal, this was a bitter pill to swallow, the tribunal had accepted the police evidence that:

  The entries in both the register and the ledgers could not be distinguished from those that related to informants and those that did not.

  The entries relating to informants if released could likely cause harm to come to any living relatives or descendant of those named.

  Although disappointed I knew that all had not been in vain as I now had the names of new suspects who had never before come to notice. In addition to the police file showing the extra police patrols in Whitechapel long after the Kelly murder, which was thought to have been the last.

  Over the next weeks I went over the decision notice looking to find an error in law to which I could appeal. I did find what I believed to be one, which revolved around Section 30 (2) (a)(b). I then sought further advice from a leading expert on the Freedom of Information legislation, Maurice Frankel who heads an organisation called “The Campaign for Freedom of Information”. He also believed that there was an error in law by the tribunal in arriving at their decision. This specific section and subsection from the Act states:

  “The exemption in section 30(2) is as follows:

  Information held by a public authority is exempt information if—

  (a) It was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes of its functions relating to—

  (i) Investigations falling within subsection (1) (a) or (b),

  (ii) Criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,

  (iii) Investigations (other than investigations falling within subsection (1) (a) or (b)) which are conducted by the authority for any of the purposes specified in section 31(2) and either by virtue of Her Majesty’s prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under any enactment, or

  (iv) Civil proceedings which are brought by or on behalf of the authority and arise out of such investigations, “and”

  (b) It relates to the obtaining of information from confidential sources.”

  For this total exemption to be met, both paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition “have” to be satisfied. First, the information must relate to one of the types of investigations or proceedings mentioned in section 30(2) (a). Second, the information must relate to the obtaining of information from confidential sources - i.e. paragraph (b) must also be satisfied.

  The requirement that both (a) and (b) must be satisfied is clear from the word “and” which appears at the end of 30(2) (a)

  In paragraph 20 of the tribunals decision notice the tribunal states: “...although we acknowledge that the opening phrase “it relates to” has a broad meaning we find it difficult to be sure that all of the disputed information can be said to relate to the obtaining of information from confidential sources.”

  That paragraph indicates that the tribunal had reservations about whether section 30(2) (b) was totally satisfied.

  In Paragraph 21 of the decision notice, the tribunal states:

  “We are accordingly satisfied that at least section 30(2)(a) is engaged and therefore proceed to consider the public interest balance under section 2(2)(b).”

  The tribunal have decided that the exemption applies because section 30(2) (a) alone is satisfied. But that is not enough. For the total exemption to apply section 30(2) (b) must “also” be satisfied, and the tribunal clearly haven't found that it is.

  Therefore in the absence of the engagement of Section 30(2) in its entirety the tribunal should not have proceeded to make a decision on the public interest factor.

  I therefore believed that there had been an error of law by the tribunal and I therefore was going to appeal to the Upper tier Tribunal to have the decision notice set aside and my appeal be allowed.

  I subsequently lodged an appeal on the point of law issue. However, the appeal notice had to go first to the original tribunal judge who reviewed the appeal notice and agreed that there had been an error in law with the tribunal decision notice.

  However, he ruled that the error in the decision notice was only in relation to the wording and did not affect the decision of the tribunal members. He therefore simply amended the wording of the decision notice, which under the legislation he was entitled to do. This effectively ruled out any further hope I had for overturning the original tribunal’s decision and gaining full access to the register and ledgers.

  In a final attempt to gain access to these records I made a direct written appeal to the newly appointed Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe. However, he did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge my letter or to even take the time to reply.

  I then made a direct appeal to the Prime Minister David Cameron, only to receive a written reply from a correspondence officer at 10, Downing Street saying that the prime minister is not in a position to read all mail sent to him and my letter had therefore not been read by him. The reply stated that my initial correspondence had been forwarded to the Home Office.

  I later received a reply from the Home Office, again from what appeared to be another correspondence department within the Home Office. The letter stated that, “Ministers could not intervene in this matter as to do so would undermine the principle that the police are entirely independent of the government”. Clearly my letters and accompanying documents had been not read by the Home Secretary or anyone else at the Home Office or within any other ministerial office.

  I can only hope that at some point in future years these records will be made public, but I fear that they will be destroyed if they haven’t been already.

  CHAPTER FIFTEEN

  NEW SUSPECTS FROM THE REGISTER

  Now I was in possession of the names of new suspects from the register I set about the task of trying to assess and evaluate the suspicions that fell upon them. The first I looked at was William McGrath and the address of 57, Bedford Gardens.

  I believe this is the Bedford Gardens, which was in Kensington, West London. Census records for this address show that this address in 1888 was occupied by a number of painters, and sculptors who had their studios there. One of these was a William Magrath who was a painter. The only difference is the spelling of the surname in the census record. However, I would suggest that it is most probably the same person referred to in the register. So what is known about William Magrath and what was there about him, which brought him to the notice of Special Branch officers and the suspicion he was connected to the Whitechapel murders?

  Magrath was born on the 20th of March 1838 at Cork, Ireland. He attended the Cork School of Art and immigrated to the United States in 1855. He took up residence in Albany, New York state, and later had a studio in New York City from 1868. He became a member of the American Society of painters in watercolours from 1868 and was elected an associate member of the National Academy in 1873 and an academician in 1876. He was famous for painting Irish landscapes.

  In 1879 he moved to England. At the time of the 1881 census he was living in the household of Georgina West at 135, Gower Street. In 1883 his address was given as care of Charles Booth, 98, Gower Street. He exhibited three works at the Cork Industrial and Fine Art exhibition of 1883. In the same year he returned to the USA and established a studio in Washington, DC. He was naturalised as a citizen of the USA on the 3rd of June 1886.

  It is known he visited England and Ireland for a six-month period in the summer of 1888. His exact whereabouts at the time of the murders are not known. What is known is that he in fact left England on the 22nd of December 1888 for New York. In 1889 he moved from Washington back to New York City. In June 1890 he again left the USA travelling back to County Cork in Ireland. The following two years he spent travelling back and forth between England and Ireland. On the 26th of April 1892 he applied for a passport at the American
Legation in London describing himself as temporarily resident at 115, Gower Street, London stating he intended to return to the USA within one year. It is believed he returned back to the USA in November 1893.

  Between 1908 and 1910 he was living in New York City. Sometime thereafter he returned back to the United Kingdom. Records show he was in the United Kingdom in 1915 and also in 1918. He died on the 13th of February 1918 at 19, Park Road, Harlesden, London.

  In 1892, his description was given as follows:

  Age: 54 years

  Stature: 5 feet, 8 inches

  Forehead: high

  Eyes: blue

  Nose: prominent

  Mouth: moustache

  Chin: bearded

  Hair: brown

  Complexion: fair

  Face: oval

  It is not known how he looked in 1888. However, a self-portrait he painted in 1873 also shows him with a full beard and a moustache. So it is likely he retained his beard throughout most of his life. It should be noted that no one with a full beard was ever seen at any of the murder locations or in company with any of the victims prior to their deaths.

  At this time there is no evidence to show why he came under suspicion. Had I been able to examine the register and ledgers in more detail I might have been able to ascertain why he was named.

  However, it is interesting that we now have a new suspect named in official police records who is a painter, this now takes us back to Les XX, could he have been connected to that group, was he an anarchist? Or was it that he was mentioned because he was of Irish descent and therefore may have had a link with the Fenians and the suspicion that fell on them for having some involvement in the Whitechapel murders? However, in the light of one theory that Mary Kelly’s murder may not have been carried out by Jack the Ripper, but by the Fenians it would be wrong to totally dismiss Magrath outright.

  The full details of the remaining entries are as follows:

  Chief Inspector Littlechild’s entry read, “Suspect O’Brien & The Whitechapel Murders”

  The entry under Jack the Ripper read, “The name given to Wilson at Bushmills”

  Having just surnames did not make enquiries into these two new suspects easy. I will first discuss the suspect named Wilson. Firstly Bushmills could be the small town of Bushmills in Co. Antrim, Ireland famous for whiskey making.

  The only reference to a Wilson I could come across with any relevance to Jack the Ripper was with regards to an article which appeared in The Irish Times newspaper dated Wednesday November 28th 1888. The article read:

  “To-day, shortly after 12 o'clock, a man was pursued by a crowd through Royal Avenue, and as many persons called "Jack the Ripper," the excitement became intense. The individual turned at the Free Library and ran up Little Donegall Street. In addition to the increasing crowd, the police were now on his track as well. Scores of people from Union Street, Charles Street, Stephen Street, and Birch Street, joined in the pursuit. It was feared that the supposed "Jack" would bolt down Birch Street and escape perchance through some familiar and mysterious haunt. These fears were but too well founded, though the fact that the visitor being called "Jack the Ripper" did not dispose the inhabitants to harbour him. "Jack" gained Carrick Hill without being captured, and he rushed into the first door on turning the corner. Here it seems he frightened some children, and when the police arrived every facility was given them to enter. Constables Britten and M'Guirk went through the premises and ultimately found the so-called "Jack" secreted in a cellar between Carrick Hill and Birch Street. The constables placed the man under arrest and conveyed him to the police office. As he was taken down Donegall Street the crowd was still further augmented, and the cry of "Jack the Ripper" was kept up. When taken to the police office the crowd which, were obliged to remain outside, gave vent to their feelings in frequent outbursts of cheering. It was discovered that the defendant was wearing two hats - a soft hat being inside a felt one - and carried two walking sticks. He gave his name as James Wilson, and appeared to be about 43 years of age. When asked his occupation he said, "I am a comedian," which was interpreted by the sergeant in charge as meaning "a ballad singer." He stated that he had been on a tour through some of the provincial towns, and had called at Lisburn and several places in County Antrim. The charge entered against him was that of "indecent behaviour," but there can be no doubt that he was arrested more for his own safety than for any breach of the peace which he had committed.”

  It says in the article that he had been to County Antrim and of course as previously stated Bushmills is in County Antrim. But other than that there is nothing more known about the James Wilson mentioned or any other Wilson. Sadly the files relative to this entry appear to have now gone. They would have been most informative. I would have imagined details of the above incident would have found its way to London and could have been made the subject of a police report and perhaps the one referred to here.

  If I thought the first entry was difficult the second entry from Littlechild would prove to be an almost impossible task. The first major problem was only having a surname and nothing else to work with, secondly the name O’Brien is another common Irish name.

  The only name I could connect having regard to all the various murder scenarios previously discussed was a William O’Brien B. 1852 at Bank Place in Mallow, County Cork.

  From an early age O'Brien's political ideas, like most of his contemporaries, were shaped by the Fenian movement and the plight of the Irish tenant farmers, his elder brother having participated in the rebellion of 1867. It resulted in O'Brien himself becoming actively involved with the Fenian brotherhood, purportedly resigning in the mid-1870s, but still taking an active role in political issues, which resulted in him being arrested and imprisoned on many occasions.

  In 1887 O'Brien helped to organize a rent strike during the Plan of Campaign at the estate of Lady Kingston near Mitchelstown, County Cork. On 9th September an 8,000-strong demonstration resulted in three estate tenants being shot dead, and others wounded, by police at the town's courthouse where O'Brien had been brought for trial on charges of incitement. This event became known as the Mitchelstown Massacre. Later that year, thousands of demonstrators marched in London to demand his release from prison, and clashed with police at Trafalgar Square on Bloody Sunday (November 10th).

  Following his release from prison he then became a Member of Parliament but was still believed to be connected to the Fenian movement retiring in 1895. For many years thereafter he campaigned for social reform.

  O’Brien was also involved in the early 20th century with the newly formed Sinn Fein which in the 1970s became the political arm of the IRA. He died suddenly on 25th February 1928 while on a visit to London with his wife at the age of 75.

  So is this the man referred to in the register? Well he most certainly would have come to the notice of both Jenkinson up until 1887 and then by Special Branch after that. I don’t think for one minute that if this is the same man he would have been responsible for the actual murders. He was a very high profile individual and the police would have no doubt been keeping him under surveillance each time he was in this country simply because he did have Fenian connections and was probably looked upon as part of their political arm.

  In concluding it’s strange that it seems that some of the more recent enquires into the case keeps bringing us back to the Fenians. On a final note in a book titled “The Rise of Scotland Yard” written by Douglas Browne. There is an entry in the book whereby Browne states from documents he viewed, Sir Melville Macnaghten believed that Jack the Ripper was the leader of a plot to assassinate Arthur Balfour the Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1887/88. It’s a coincidence that Balfour was at one time instrumental in the imprisonment of O’Brien.

  Macnaghten could not have been privy to all of this information at the time as he was not in office at that time. He joined the Metropolitan Police in 1889, so he must have read if from another source. Having regards to the discrepancies in his now much mention
ed memorandum from 1894, extreme caution should be heeded when assessing the truthfulness and accuracy of anything Macnaghten was associated with.

  One positive note to come out of the new disclosure and Littlechild’s entry is the fact he does not mention Tumblety despite suggesting in later years that he was his prime suspect. From what I have seen there does not appear to be any other Littlechild entries relating to the Whitechapel murders in the register. On that basis I would suggest serious consideration be given to removing Tumblety from any further suspicion of being involved in the murders.

  In the interim period as a result of information provided to me by a third party I was led to believe that the register also contained another entry appertaining to the Whitechapel murders. This was a named entry under the name R. Churchill and the entry read, “Perpetrator of The Whitechapel Murders”. It was suggested to me that this entry could relate to Randolph Churchill the father of Sir Winston Churchill.

  I knew that his name had been mentioned before in Ripper circles, and his name appears in a Ripper book titled “The Celebrity Suspects” written by Mike Holgate.

  Randolph Henry Spencer Churchill was born 13th February 1849 which would have made him 39 at the time of the murders. He was born to be a politician representing several constituencies in the House of Commons between 1874 and 1885.

  Under Prime Minister Lord Salisbury he then became secretary of state for India a post which lasted 12 months. He was then appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons. An appointment Queen Victoria opposed describing him as, “So mad and odd”.