The Secrets of the Special Reports

[David Orsam]

There are initials on the cover which I cannot entirely decipher (but quite possibly they are the initials of Inspector William Davis)

Having seen some original examples from 1900 of the signature of Superintendent (as he then was) William Davis I can now confirm that it is indeed his initials on the cover of the first special report dated 31 Aug. His "W" looks like "CO" so his initials look like "COD" hence the uncertainty but it is actually "WD".

Inspector Davis was the person who wrote "3rd Special Report" and "327/3" on the cover of the 7 Sept report so if it was an administrative error it was his mistake.

[David Orsam]

Looking at the Martha Tabram file, I see that a similar situation with missing reports appears to have occurred there too. There is a Special Report in the file, by Inspector Ellisdon, dated 10 August 1888, then the next report we have is that of Inspector Reid dated 16 August 1888 which is said to be the "3rd Special Report". As the report of 10 August 1888 begins with a description of the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the body of Martha Tabram in George Yard, one would naturally assume that this was the first special report and that somewhere between the 10th and 16th August the second special report was submitted. This would be almost identical to the Nichols case where the reports described as the first and third reports are seven days apart. However, it may not be as simple as that because at ff.35-36 of MEPO 3/140 (which is not reproduced in the Ultimate Sourcebook) is a schedule entitled "Succinct details of Murder of Woman named Martha Tabram alias Turner on 7th Augt 1888", described in the typed index as "Details of murdered woman in tabular form". This has a column headed "Date of police report", in which the entry says "7 Augt 1888". There is no surviving special report with this date and, if that report is a reference to the first special report, the one dated 10th must have been the second. We also have a report described as "5th Special Report" also by Inspector Reid, dated 24 August, but the fourth is clearly missing.

Just to add one more little thing. I found an article about the police in the Globe of 10 September 1888 which contained this sentence:

"It seems hardly credible, and yet it is perfectly true, that when the first of the three recent diabolical murders in Whitechapel occurred about a month ago, Mr Superintendent Williamson, though attending daily at Scotland-yard, in charge of the Detective Department, received no notice whatever for a whole week that any such crime had been committed, and that this happened not accidentally or through carelessness, but in accordance with a deliberate plan on the part of the Commissioner of Police."

Leaving aside that the paper has got Williamson's rank wrong - he was then the Chief Constable at CID - does anyone else think this is a remarkable example of what was surely an inside briefing against Charles Warren? I mention it in this thread because I wonder if there is any connection with this story and the Police Order of 7 February 1888, whereby Special Reports were to be initially submitted to a superintendent at Executive Branch of the Commissioner's Office rather than directly to the CID. In other words, I wonder if the above story in the Globe is somehow, at least in part, a reflection of dissatisfaction with this rather strange new arrangement.

[Scott Nelson]

Take a look at the Coles Murder reports. A couple of Home Office files at the crucial time are missing.

[Monty]

I say more a lack of comprehension.

Monty

[David Orsam]

I wonder if there is any connection with this story and the Police Order of 7 February 1888,

Correction - that should be 9 February 1888, as correctly stated in my OP.

[David Orsam]

Monty - I must confess to a lack of comprehension on my own part regarding your post.

[Pcdunn]

I have been looking at this again and I now think it is most likely to be 12:50pm. Having said this, if Spratling was searching for a weapon (and bloodstains) around Buck's Row between 11am and 12pm on that day, as he says he was, then it was quite an achievement for him to complete his report (which includes details of this search), have it approved by his superintendent and then get it to Whitehall by ten minutes to one.

I was wondering if the London or Metropolitan police used the 24 hour system of time notation, as modern police departments do. It seems this was agreed upon in the mid-nineteenth century by some group of Greenwich timekeepers, and that would make "17:50 pm" a possibility for the handwritten notation.

It does seem, upon further research, that the British Navy was the first military group to adopt the 24 hour time notation, and the police did so in the 20th century, but I was curious if anyone knows more about this topic?

[David Orsam]

Wouldn't the "pm" be redundant though if you write "17:50"? I mean, isn't the whole point of the 24 hour clock so that you know that 17:50 is 5:50 in the afternoon without needing to say so?

[Pcdunn]

Oh, right. Well, it was a long shot...

[David Orsam]

Here's the image, from the microfilm, so you can have a go at deciphering it yourself:

[Pcdunn]

Here's the image, from the microfilm, so you can have a go at deciphering it yourself:

Thank you! Very odd. Looks like a "17", but the following part could be either "hr" or "50"-- hard to tell with the slash mark going over some of the writing, after which appears the "pm"... Interesting!

Note: It could be a "12", but the tail is very short.

This is why librarians and archivists sometimes transcribe old handwriting as "illegible" in documents!

[Rosella]

It looks as if this was quickly scribbled. The last letters are definitely a pm, in my opinion, and the number is a twelve with a very stubby tail. What the letters in between are, heaven knows, it looks like a ho!

Would the police sometimes, when catching up with their paperwork, just put the time a search or an interview was completed rather than the time the actual report was finished?

[David Orsam]

Would the police sometimes, when catching up with their paperwork, just put the time a search or an interview was completed rather than the time the actual report was finished?

Hi Rosella - you probably need to see the full context. The time has been written on the cover sheet (which would be the reverse side of the report) and is inside the received date stamp. So it would appear to be the time the report was received by the Executive Branch at Whitehall. The below makes it all clearer:

[Rosella]

Thanks David, that does make it clearer. Which makes it even worse in a way, because I would swear that the last two letters are a pm, and I still do feel that the number before it is a 2.

[Wickerman]

The number 2 (in 327) is very similar.