Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
About the Casebook

 Search:
 

Join the Chat Room!

An Inspector is Naughty Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Message Boards » Police Officials » General Discussion / Other Police Officials » An Inspector is Naughty « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 1913
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 3:13 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

This is a useful lesson for anyone studying the behaviour of senior police officers in the Victorian Age, and how they may have used personal influence to manage a serious criminal case to their advantage.
This is the case of John Massey Tierney, Inspector 'A' division who attempted to protect a friend or relation from serious charges of attacking women.
The Times, June 7th 1844.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil

Post Number: 281
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:44 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

But AP, 40 years is a long time, and certainly sufficient for an organisation's ethos to change for good or ill. I would cite changes in the modern British civil service over my 30+ year career.

If nothing else, 44 years is a couple of generations of officers - someone joining in 1844 would have retired by 88 would they not?

I am no expert in the history of the Met Police, but surely there were several major reforms between 1844 and 1888 after several scandals.

But I do take your main thrust - less than upright individuals can exist in any organisation and this shows they did.

As always your research is illuminating,
Thank you
Phil
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 1919
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 5:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Point taken, Phil.
I'll see if I can't advance the date a bit for you. Worth remembering we have the double dealing and blatant interference with witnesses in the Cleveland Street fiasco which was much later.
And not forgetting 'Miss Cass', which directly involved our much loved uncle Charles Cutbush.
And then there was Trafalgar.
But I'll bend myself to the task anyway.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil

Post Number: 286
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 12:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

But AP, the Cleveland St interference may have been orchestrated from above. That was an "establishment" thing, at least in part. I'm not sure that it was an example of a corrupt officer or officers acting off their own bat...

Phil
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf

Post Number: 1924
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Quite right, Phil.
But the officers concerned were still being reckless with the truth at a court level.
On a critical level I would say that the 'Detectives And Mr. Froggatt' case of 1877 is educational of attitudes and behaviour of serving senior officers in the LVP.
(november 21st 1877).
Less important sort of street wise drunken cops falling down - usually drunk - on their valuable duties - which would have played a part in the Ripper investigation - would be PC William Bailey, 'D' division, November 28th 1876; then the wholesale corruption of an entire police division when offered free drinks at the Monmouth Club in 1880, October 23rd; a PC Drew, 'E' division for serious misconduct, December 17th 1881; and finally a very drunken PC M'auley, number 566A, who enjoyed bashing people around in 1889, October 3rd.
These guys are certainly batting for their own team.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil

Post Number: 293
Registered: 1-2005
Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We also know from the scandals of the early 80s that the Met was not above reproach. That was in part why Warren was brought in was it not = to impose greater discipline?

For my part - and I'll admit I have done no personal research on this - I thought the impression of the police in connection with the JtR case had been improving in recent years rather than the reverse.

Phil

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Register now! Administration

Use of these message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use. The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping. The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements. You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.