Special Branch Register and Ledger-decison Notice

[Trevor Marriott]

Copies of redacted pages from register

I have posted these two pages which are from the redcated register. It can clearly be seen the great difficulty in being able to assess and evaluate the contents due to the heavy redaction.

Butterworth decsribed the actions of The Metropolitan Police as an act of historical vandalism in this redaction process. I could not agree more.

[Phil Carter]

Herllo Trevor,

Again, many thanks.

As I see this, it reads..

Churchill, Mr. alleged perpetrator of Whitechapel murders

Cannot quite work out the name at the end, but looks like it starts with C.I.
(Chief Inspector?) and a name starting with the letter B ?

Perhaps others see this more clearly.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Entry from register re Churchill

As promised herewith is the relevant entry from the register regarding Churchill.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that can probably be explained by Clutterbuck's reference to "the use of the spare capacity at the back [of the register] for overflow" (p. 69). Would there need to be any provision for overflow if "all of the pages follow[ed] on from each other"?

Believe me, all I've been trying to do here is try understand to what extent these records have been searched and how they are organised - because it may be worthwhile for others to carry out more searches in them in the future.

As you consider these records are important but don't have the time to search them fully yourself, I'd have thought you would encourage interest from others, rather than being so hostile.

I will post sample pages of the redacted one then you can see the mammoth task facing anyone.

[Chris]

I dont know what you are trying to prove or suggest here but all of the pages follow on from each other if they were made up at the time then there would be gaps at the ends of the pages.

I think that can probably be explained by Clutterbuck's reference to "the use of the spare capacity at the back [of the register] for overflow" (p. 69). Would there need to be any provision for overflow if "all of the pages follow[ed] on from each other"?

Believe me, all I've been trying to do here is try understand to what extent these records have been searched and how they are organised - because it may be worthwhile for others to carry out more searches in them in the future.

As you consider these records are important but don't have the time to search them fully yourself, I'd have thought you would encourage interest from others, rather than being so hostile.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you sure you haven't misunderstood something he wrote?

He says (p. 64) that the entries cover the period 1888 to "@1892" (meaning, I assume, c. 1892), and (p. 68) that there is a stamp on the first page with a handwritten date 20.4.88. Obviously that suggests it came into use in April 1888, not in 1894. That seems to have been Clutterbuck's own interpretation, as on p. 194 he refers to a date in December 1886 as being "apparently some two years before the Register was commenced."

He also makes (p. 70) the statement I quoted above, which suggests the entries are in chronological order, or approximately so:
"Specific dates are rarely given but by taking an archaeological approach to what entries lie before or after a dated entry, a rough estimate of the possible date of the others can sometimes be inferred."

He does also say (on pp. 350, 351):
"No detective officer would have been able to keep in his head all the salient facts surrounding the broader activities of extreme Irish nationalists over a period of several years. Recording it in writing was a fundamental requirement. However, once the decision to do this had been taken, a system to assist the retrieval of the information also was needed. The compilation of an index such as the Chief Constable's Register and the files to which it referred became an inevitable consequence of their operational methodology."

But I don't think there's any implication there that the register was compiled after the files. On the contrary, he's saying that both the index and the files were necessary to allow information to be retrieved, once that information was being recorded.

I dont know what you are trying to prove or suggest here but all of the pages follow on from each other if they were made up at the time then there would be gaps at the ends of the pages.

The register covers the period from 1888 that is when the file referencing and indexing first started. As I said previous there is evidence to show that files opened before 1888 were also entered in the register

You interpret them how you want to obvioulsy we differ maybe you should go and see for yourself as you dont seem to want to accept anything I say or write.

I have no time for playing your games you obvioulsy have another agenda here

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Another gem...I have had it confirmed that the Churchill entry does exist and I will publish a copy of that entry later today

Thank you Trevor. Most appreciated.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

In his thesis somewhere I dont have it to hand at this time sorry.

Are you sure you haven't misunderstood something he wrote?

He says (p. 64) that the entries cover the period 1888 to "@1892" (meaning, I assume, c. 1892), and (p. 68) that there is a stamp on the first page with a handwritten date 20.4.88. Obviously that suggests it came into use in April 1888, not in 1894. That seems to have been Clutterbuck's own interpretation, as on p. 194 he refers to a date in December 1886 as being "apparently some two years before the Register was commenced."

He also makes (p. 70) the statement I quoted above, which suggests the entries are in chronological order, or approximately so:
"Specific dates are rarely given but by taking an archaeological approach to what entries lie before or after a dated entry, a rough estimate of the possible date of the others can sometimes be inferred."

He does also say (on pp. 350, 351):
"No detective officer would have been able to keep in his head all the salient facts surrounding the broader activities of extreme Irish nationalists over a period of several years. Recording it in writing was a fundamental requirement. However, once the decision to do this had been taken, a system to assist the retrieval of the information also was needed. The compilation of an index such as the Chief Constable's Register and the files to which it referred became an inevitable consequence of their operational methodology."

But I don't think there's any implication there that the register was compiled after the files. On the contrary, he's saying that both the index and the files were necessary to allow information to be retrieved, once that information was being recorded.

[Trevor Marriott]

I must have missed Clutterbuck's statement to that effect. Can you tell me where it is, please?

In his thesis somewhere I dont have it to hand at this time sorry.

[Chris]

The register was designed and entered in alphabetical entries with what would appear to be all special branch files which they had amassed since 1888, and as I previoulsy said some relating to files from before 1888. Clutterbuck states this and I am confirming what his opinion was.

I must have missed Clutterbuck's statement to that effect. Can you tell me where it is, please?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

As I have said, if there's some reason you don't want to explain your reasoning, that's up to you.

But if you were in the position of someone else reading this thread, wouldn't your first instinct as a detective be to ask "How do you know that?" or "Why do you think that?"

There is no reasoning to explain Chris and no hidden agenda as you seem to keep suggesting. The register was designed and entered in alphabetical entries with what would appear to be all special branch files which they had amassed since 1888, and as I previoulsy said some relating to files from before 1888. Clutterbuck states this and I am confirming what his opinion was.

It is quite simple these files were just sitting around and they felt the need to create more space and so they documented them gave them a referenece number and a box number where they could easily be pulled out if the need arose. They were then I imagine stored en mass somewhere.

Just to confirm what I said previous Littlechild would have had no involvement in entering the references. His involvemnet was in relation to the ledger which relate to payment paid out by Special Branch which he was directly responsible for,

[lynn cates]

fund

Hello Lechmere.

"it should be in the interests of everyone involved in this field to contribute to a fighting fund to assist with an appeal"

Hear, hear!

Shall we get up a subscription?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

For all those following this thread, about the decision notice itself and the revelations within the ledgers and registers, there may be some that perhaps have not seen, nor perhaps read, the original thread about these ledgers and registers. In which case, much of the history about them is here:-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4688

I make no presumptions corncerning any individual, but add this for the interest of all, which may or may not be helpful in some way, just in case.

best wishes

Phil

[Lechmere]

Yes and this is an interesting subject which really should be pursued. I’m trying to get straight in my mind what we are dealing with that’s all.
Incidentally as this is possibly the last untapped official source, it should be in the interests of everyone involved in this field to contribute to a fighting fund to assist with an appeal... Having said that I would not expect Special Branch to hold that much detailed information relating to Jack the Ripper although obviously as we have seen there will be useful information touching on the case.
Anyway I have a few questions – friendly questions hopefully rather the type which would be put by a hostile interrogator...

So the Special Irish Branch which was formed in 1883 and became just the Special Branch in 1888, had a growing collection of files and in 1894 (or so?) it was decided to keep certain of these files indexed in this ledger. And we know that Littlechild was in charge until he resigned in 1893. This means that none of the ledger entries can be in Littlechild’s handwriting surely?

Do we know how many people worked in Special Branch around this time?
It cannot have been many. Would not a clerk have done an administrative chore like compiling the ledger?

There are 36,000 entries – do we know up to what date this ledger was kept?
I would presume that once the ledger was put up to date (i.e. in 1894 - or so?), new entries would just be added as and when?
Is there any idea of what proportion predate and how many postdate 1894?

[Chris]

Trevor

As I have said, if there's some reason you don't want to explain your reasoning, that's up to you.

But if you were in the position of someone else reading this thread, wouldn't your first instinct as a detective be to ask "How do you know that?" or "Why do you think that?"