Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

interestrateripoff

Police Make Bizarre Legal Battle To Keep Jack The Ripper Files Secret So Victorian Sources Keep Their 'confidentiality'

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387354/Jack-Ripper-Scotland-Yards-legal-battle-files-secret-120-years-killings.html

The Met Police is fighting a legal battle to keep files detailing the investigation into the notorious Jack the Ripper case secret - to maintain confidentiality for Victorian 'supergrasses'.

The documents are said to include four new suspects for the serial killings which terrorised Whitechapel in 1888 and have become one of the world's most infamous unsolved cases.

The historic ledgers have 36,000 entries detailing police interaction with informants between 1888 to 1912.

However, Scotland Yard reportedly believes disclosing the names could hinder recruiting and gathering information from modern informants, affecting terrorism investigations - and even lead to the Victorians' relatives being attacked.

The police come up with some right 5h1t, why the hell would anyone go after relatives now?

You have to think now there is something juicy in the files or it's someone who's really ******** and doesn't want to everyone to know what they know which possible isn't that exciting, contradictory I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
british-police-handbook-4.jpg?w=500&h=376

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
british-police-handbook-0.jpg?w=500&h=379

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
british-police-handbook-5.jpg?w=500&h=379

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a-british-police-handbook-10.jpg?w=500&h=376

Sometimes the Police think in very strange ways. As can be seen from this popular School text book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387354/Jack-Ripper-Scotland-Yards-legal-battle-files-secret-120-years-killings.html

The police come up with some right 5h1t, why the hell would anyone go after relatives now?

You have to think now there is something juicy in the files or it's someone who's really ******** and doesn't want to everyone to know what they know which possible isn't that exciting, contradictory I know.

Ok, who are the main suspects? At least one has to someone really important. My guess is that the best-connected guy (whoever he was) did it. Why else would they cover this up after a hundred or so years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387354/Jack-Ripper-Scotland-Yards-legal-battle-files-secret-120-years-killings.html

The police come up with some right 5h1t, why the hell would anyone go after relatives now?

You have to think now there is something juicy in the files or it's someone who's really ******** and doesn't want to everyone to know what they know which possible isn't that exciting, contradictory I know.

I can see why some Islamic informants may want total anonimity forever because of the retributive nature of the belief system. They could have a genuine fear for their descendants unto the third and fourth generation.

Equally, there may be some prominent families mentioned in the files. (You know what I mean)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, who are the main suspects? At least one has to someone really important. My guess is that the best-connected guy (whoever he was) did it. Why else would they cover this up after a hundred or so years?

Member of Royal family (was one suspect) who didn't use his member?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, Scotland Yard reportedly believes disclosing the names could hinder recruiting and gathering information from modern informants, affecting terrorism investigations - and even lead to the Victorians' relatives being attacked.

Well it's all a bit over the top & elf'n'safety. But the boring answer is they have a point about protecting informants anonymity. If informants are named in a high profile case (however old) it hardly reassures the grasses of today of their future safety.

That's the boring answer. The more popular answer will be it's a conspiracy to protect the Royal family. Rumour has it the super secret files contain a facial description of the prime suspect as having "vague similarities to a squamate reptile", more commonly known as..... a lizard :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever their reason the met's justification for this just caused them a massive crash in credibility.

It would be interesting to know what was in the files but tbh a few murders over a century ago do not keep me awake at night pondering the riddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's all a bit over the top & elf'n'safety. But the boring answer is they have a point about protecting informants anonymity. If informants are named in a high profile case (however old) it hardly reassures the grasses of today of their future safety.

Who are all long dead, as too will all their children.

After 100 years there is no valid reason for keeping this information secret. None.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are all long dead, as too will all their children.

After 100 years there is no valid reason for keeping this information secret. None.

I can see one reason - if it involved an important family still on the throne - but that is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point.

It's about the grasses of today.

Revealing sources is bad pr when trying to recruit new informants.

It's a tenuous reason. But a reason nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With people living longer and having babies later, 100 years is no longer 5 generations. It's probably more like 3.

Your not from a sink estate are you? 100 years is easily 6 or 7 generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

In a hundred years time they will be wondering why the Dunblane shooting enquiry was sealed for 100 years too.

That George Robertson seems a nice chap.

Hope this thread doesn't disappear too now.

eight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see one reason - if it involved an important family still on the throne - but that is it.

Or perhaps a senior member of the Police force at the time, who has otherwise left a lasting legacy?

Perhaps a foreign emmissary?

Maybe a highly regarded politician/national figure? Churchill would have been 14 at the time, and Wellington dead for 35 or so, so unlikely candidates, but someone else of that historical stature would cause a lot of upset - a national hero in disgrace so long after the event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not from a sink estate are you? 100 years is easily 6 or 7 generations.

I'm mid 30s, no kids yet. My Dad was mid 30s when I was born, not sure about his. If I have kids now, and they fail to breed until their 30s, that's 100 years for 3 generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a bit daft, could be something really interesting in there (although I doubt it), but unfortunately it's not hard to imagine that some idiot might attack someone else because their great grandfather was the Ripper although IMO that isn't a good excuse - if he'd been caught and tried then it would be historical record anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems a bit daft, could be something really interesting in there (although I doubt it), but unfortunately it's not hard to imagine that some idiot might attack someone else because their great grandfather was the Ripper although IMO that isn't a good excuse - if he'd been caught and tried then it would be historical record anyway.

This getting close, as you say IF he had been tried, it would be public knowledge.

Do the files reveal that certain obvious lines of enquiry were never followed because of where they might lead?

But against this, would today's Police be embarrassed by an obvious cover up 130 years old?

They're wish to keep things secret can only fuel more speculation that a prominent person was a suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This getting close, as you say IF he had been tried, it would be public knowledge.

Do the files reveal that certain obvious lines of enquiry were never followed because of where they might lead?

But against this, would today's Police be embarrassed by an obvious cover up 130 years old?

They're wish to keep things secret can only fuel more speculation that a prominent person was a suspect.

They probably would be embarrassed, for no good reason at all since no-one else would care what they were like 130 years ago, all but the most loony realising that it doesn't mean much. But similarly, the same is true for anyone, however prominent. It's stupid to be embarrassed about anything that you didn't personally have anything to do with. As far as I'm concerned the actions of my relatives, alive and dead, don't reflect on me at all, for good or bad. Anyone with a different attitude needs their head examining.

If everyone involved in an event is dead the only rational reason for keeping something quiet is that some morons alive now would think it matters and would react. Their hurt feelings should be ignored because they're utterly irrational, although unfortunately you have to think about how to deal with their behaviour.

Where that all falls apart is expecting the police to necessarily be logical about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were truly just protecting informants they could redact names, surely.

If on the other hand a suspect who lives at No* Buck***ham Pal*** Road was named, the extensive details might be hard to obscure.

Note that many wartime documents naming spies and double agents who worked for the allies are now in the public domain.

I think this gives weight to the claims that a suspect was in a VERY influential and prominent position, and revealing their name would cause political problems for their equally influential and prominent descendants.

Perhaps inbreeding gives rise to behavioural problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<tfh>Of course isn't the most likely explanation is that the whole series of murders was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by the Police forces at the time to justify expansion of the service, and the costs of their spangly new scotland yard offices that opened a year later... </tfh>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were truly just protecting informants they could redact names, surely.

If on the other hand a suspect who lives at No* Buck***ham Pal*** Road was named, the extensive details might be hard to obscure.

Note that many wartime documents naming spies and double agents who worked for the allies are now in the public domain.

I think this gives weight to the claims that a suspect was in a VERY influential and prominent position, and revealing their name would cause political problems for their equally influential and prominent descendants.

Perhaps inbreeding gives rise to behavioural problems.

Giving people hassle because of what some now-dead ancestor did is certainly a behavioural problem. However influential the person was anyone who causes problems now because of it is too unbalanced to be worth paying attention to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're missing the point.

It's about the grasses of today.

Revealing sources is bad pr when trying to recruit new informants.

It's a tenuous reason. But a reason nonetheless.

Not missing the point at all. These are historical documents. I have no problem with the identities of grasses being held secret for 100 years to protect the living and their immediate offspring. After that, it is history and the documents should be in the public domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.