Special Branch Register and Ledger-decison Notice

[Chris]

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 ?

I'm really not sure, but what strikes me is that the file number, 52983, is a lot larger than any of the other ones I've seen referred to, and it's also a huge file. Did this register refer to files held by other bodies as well as Special Branch?

The third letter looks like a 'D' to me, in which case it could be C.I.D. something. But if it were an 'R' it might be "C. I. Registry."

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

With reference to that file No. and the size of the file.. I have a thought.
Could it be that when Special Branch investigated a case, or enter an investigation, they aquire all previous files on the subject, for aquaintance purposes?
In which case, as we know many of the original Met Police files are missing from the archives, PRE- puloining era a few decades ago, from the time..
could it be that those original files ended up in the hands of Special Branch and were kept by them?

Seems it could be an explanation, as well as the ones we know were taken/missing/purloined by individuals at various stages over the last 123 years.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

My apologies I posted the same picture twice here is another page from the register

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

Correct me if I am wrong, but as the redacted copies are the only ones at present available for public consumption, and if any eventual appeal is not upheld, then the original ledgers will never see the light of day. Therefore, historically, what WE, the public are left with can indeed be seen as historical vandalism, as it destroys the TRUE factual historical picture. It prevents OUR history becoming a factual subject, and leaves only a redacted version.

It must be remembered that amongst the 36,000 entries, only a minor percentage have anything to do with informants names or nom de plumes.
So everything else, historically, is wiped from our ability to read factual history about many of these people named yet redacted out of the ledgers.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

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.

Thanks for posting these images. It must be a frustrating job looking at this redacted version, and I understand that searching through the whole volume would be a big task. (Nor was I putting myself forward as a volunteer.)

But it may just be that someone in London could find the time to do so, given the possibility that there's more information there to be found.

[Phil H]

Maybe this generation is denied the right to see the whole document, but it still exists to be released at some point in the future.

I recognise yor frustration in not being able to see the whole document, but in the balance of things that is a drop in an ocean. While recent legislation has considerably loosened the regulations and we can now see documents that would once have been kept confidential for 30 or 100 years, there remain many documents which are still kept "hidden" (for good reason) but which will undoubtedly be available to historians and maybe everyone in due course. I am sure that that will be true of the Registers etc.

However, given what was done to the Swanson marginalia while in police hands, I thought (for one awful moment) that some official had actually blacked out names ON THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT. That would indeed have been vandalism, even if unintentional.

The pictures that Trevor has posted appeared to show a photocopy, but I had to make sure.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

File 52983

If you look at the Churchill entry the file reference number is shown as 52983.

I have attached the first parts of two of Insp Abberlines reports notice they both have the same file numbers 52983.

It would seem that this file and number could have been the main working file the police had in relation to the Whitechapel Murders

[Phil Carter]

Maybe this generation is denied the right to see the whole document, but it still exists to be released at some point in the future.

Hello Phil H,

Well, given that the National Archives have said they do not see the point in keeping them, and given the well known track record of the Met for throwing away historical documents, one can imagine a scenario down the line when yes, these would be available for public consumption, but lo and behold "they cannot now be found" or "were destroyed long ago" will be the response.

Technically the Met have no responsibility to keep the originals if they do not see fit. I fear this could happen. What is morally right or wrong doesn't seem to have a bearing on any decision.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

I think there would be a justifiable furore if these specific documents disappeared now.

Government departments dispose of many routine papers frequently - they would be overwhelmed if they did not. I believe the rule is that financial papers are kept for seven years, for instance.

But documents that relate to the "public record" are preserved and passed eventually to the National Archives. So the record of decisions on major projects (for instance) should always be available for future scrutiny.

I don't know what rules the Met works to in regard to criminal cases, but the fact that public interest has been expressed in thes registers etc, should mean that no one dares destroy or deface them. By and large (in my long experience) public servants are pretty honest and do have the public interest and law very much at heart.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I think there would be a justifiable furore if these specific documents disappeared now.

Government departments dispose of many routine papers frequently - they would be overwhelmed if they did not. I believe the rule is that financial papers are kept for seven years, for instance.

But documents that relate to the "public record" are preserved and passed eventually to the National Archives. So the record of decisions on major projects (for instance) should always be available for future scrutiny.

I don't know what rules the Met works to in regard to criminal cases, but the fact that public interest has been expressed in thes registers etc, should mean that no one dares destroy or deface them. By and large (in my long experience) public servants are pretty honest and do have the public interest and law very much at heart.

Phil

I beleive that when the appeal period has expired and if no appeal has been lodged they will destroy them. They have offered them to the archives in 2004 who rejected them. While they still have them in their entirety they will remain a thorn in their side. So they have the right to destroy them

[Chris]

It would seem that this file and number could have been the main working file the police had in relation to the Whitechapel Murders

I think that makes sense. Presumably Special Branch was told about this because it concerned "Mr Churchill," and instead of making an additional copy of the document they just recorded a reference to the CID file. I suppose what it says in the final column is "C.I.D. registry".

[Phil Carter]

I think that makes sense. Presumably Special Branch was told about this because it concerned "Mr Churchill," and instead of making an additional copy of the document they just recorded a reference to the CID file. I suppose what it says in the final column is "C.I.D. registry".

Hello Chris,

I have been looking at this carefully and I believe at the moment it seems you interpretation of that last word is indeed correct, C.I.D.Registry.

best wishes

Phil

[mariab]

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.

I too see “CID“, like Chris.
I didn't see an “R.“ initial before “Churchill“, though! So there goes “Randoplh“...

If you look at the Churchill entry the file reference number is shown as 52983. I have attached the first parts of two of Insp Abberlines reports notice they both have the same file numbers 52983.
It would seem that this file and number could have been the main working file the police had in relation to the Whitechapel Murders

Also Sergeant Stephen White's report pertaining to the Berner Street case features file number 52983, while Robert Anderson's letter from the HO features file number 53983. (See The Ultimate, p. 144-45 and p. 142.)

[Chris]

Failure of common sense

For those with strong stomachs, the "Decision Notice" of the Tribunal is here:

http://tinyurl.com/68sec23

"On balance the majority view is that the small public interest in disclosure is not outweighed by the also fairly small, but very important, public interest in maintaining the exemption.

The minority view is that, despite the seniority of the witnesses and the strength of their convictions, their reasoning - that a current day informant, having sufficient emotional resilience to serve any useful purpose, would withdraw co-operation upon seeing that the freedom of information regime requires 120 year old records to be disclosed - simply fails a very basic common sense test ..."

All I can say is congratulations to the member of the tribunal who remembered that there was such a thing as common sense, and thanks to Trevor Marriott, Simon Wood and Phil Carter for doing their best in the cause of common sense.

[The Grave Maurice]

Drat! I'm disappointed. But no one can say that it isn't a thoughtful and well-written decision. And only one of them came down on the wrong side (IMO). Close, but no cigar.