The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Chris]

Actually, checking what Clutterbuck says, I see that there are actually five sections per letter of the alphabet, so what we have is an image of part of a page covering essentially surnames beginning Ke, which obviously changes the calculation. Not that I'm convinced that's the right Kennedy anyway, considering that there does seem to have been a fairly prominent nationalist with the right initials.

Clutterbuck does seem to believe that the arrangement within each cut is chronological, as he speaks of "taking an archaeological approach" to estimating the dates of entries from nearby ones.

[Stewart P Evans]

Impossible

...that the material would never be released and if it appeared that it was going to be accessed it would be destroyed.
Which would, as I understand it be a criminal offence punishable (in a worst case) by imprisonment.
These registers are known to exist, are part of the public record, are known to be subject to public interest and thus destruction would be a deliberate act.
...
Non-release and a refusal to release would be enough - destruction would not be required and I do not think any individual would willingly put himself/herself in that position. "Woe unto them" if they do.
I don't doubt that the words were spoken, but it sounds to me like hyperbole.
Phil

Yes, the words were spoken and I don't even know who the gentleman was who made the statement.

If the ledgers were simply to disappear how would anyone be able to prove they had been destroyed? You need evidence to prove just who was responsible for the items going missing and I don't think you would find too many witnesses behind those closed doors. And if the hierarchy were sympathetic to the non-production of the material then I should think the task would be impossible.

[mariab]

Actually, checking what Clutterbuck says, I see that there are actually five sections per letter of the alphabet

5 sections arranged after the SECOND letter of the name, alphabetically?

Clutterbuck does seem to believe that the arrangement within each cut is chronological, as he speaks of "taking an archaeological approach" to estimating the dates of entries from nearby ones.

I'm not comtemplating for a minute that this isn't a basically chronological entry system, but I suspect that there might have been subsequent/additional entries, added out of order. I think that Debra Arif also sees it that way. (If I'm not mistaken.)

[Chris]

I'm not comtemplating for a minute that this isn't a basically chronological entry system, but I suspect that there might have been subsequent/additional entries, added out of order. I think that Debra Arif also sees it that way. (If I'm not mistaken.)

I suppose it's possible, if for some reason there were delays before some classes of items were entered.

I'm not really clear why people think the order isn't chronological, though, because that would be the norm in a record arranged like this.

[mariab]

The comparison is a bit unfortunate, but this reminds of working with the Vademecum notebooks of librettist Eugène Scribe, which are mainly chronological and sometimes even dated, but sometimes Scribe goes back and writes things subsequently – and not just additions/corrections, but also new entries.

[Stephen Thomas]

Whilst making tentative enquiries about the ledgers a few years ago we were warned that it was a sensitive subject and was best steered clear of. I took part in a public debate about the Whitechapel murders and I mentioned the Special Branch material. After the talk I was approached by someone who informed me that the material would never be released and if it appeared that it was going to be accessed it would be destroyed.

Thanks Stewart. These people are not to be messed with, I'd say.

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello Chris.

"I'm not really clear why people think the order isn't chronological, though, because that would be the norm in a record arranged like this."

I think it's because some entries--like the Kerwin--describe events in the distant past. Similarly, the Jenkinson material seems to refer to BEFORE he was sacked (end of 1886--beginning of 1887).

Debs conjectured that all these entries refer to proceedings from the Parnell commission. Perhaps so.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Similarly, the Jenkinson material seems to refer to BEFORE he was sacked (end of 1886--beginning of 1887).

Obviously. ;-)

[Chris]

I think it's because some entries--like the Kerwin--describe events in the distant past. Similarly, the Jenkinson material seems to refer to BEFORE he was sacked (end of 1886--beginning of 1887).

Debs conjectured that all these entries refer to proceedings from the Parnell commission. Perhaps so.

It's certainly very perplexing.

I note that Clutterbuck comments on Jenkinson's presence in the ledger as follows:
"One question remains unanswered, even after reading the Monro memoirs. If Jenkinson had departed in january 1887, be it through resignation or dismissal, why are there numerous references to him in the Chief Constable's Register which appears not to have commenced until April 20th, 1888? These references are not historical leftovers from previous years but appear to be current issues e.g. "Jenkinson, Mr - attention of Home Office again called to papers with - 3622/2" and "Jenkinson, E. G. Esq - forwarding file re detaining files of Irish papers - 3622/2". The most likely explanation is that Jenkinson returned to his previous duties as Assistant Under Secretary for Police and Crime at Dublin Castle. This would account for his involvement with correspondence relating to Irish extremism and the continuing references to him in the Chief Constable's Register."

Or could he have just been gradually sorting out his old files and sending them on to Special Branch?

Also, where there are numbers in the final column, identified by Clutterbuck as containing folio numbers in the correspondence register, they appear to run in sequence, which again suggests to me that the order is chronological.

I assume the entry "re warrant for arrest of Pat Molloy" relates to the warrant issued for his arrest on 5 December 1888 to force him to attend the Parnell Commission. That would be reasonably consistent with the possible timing I suggested before for the Tanner entry.

[mariab]

As per the Tanner entry, too beat to read that entire Hansard thing now. Going to sleep...

[lynn cates]

fire in the hole

Hello Chris. Perhaps most perplexing of all is that this all turns up AFTER Sir Edward averred that he burnt all his records.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Perhaps most perplexing of all is that this all turns up AFTER Sir Edward averred that he burnt all his records.

Sir Edward reminds me of the SB (decisive) members SPE was quoting.
Apologies for the irreverence, it's the late hour, peace, out. :-)

[belinda]

Yes, the words were spoken and I don't even know who the gentleman was who made the statement.

If the ledgers were simply to disappear how would anyone be able to prove they had been destroyed? You need evidence to prove just who was responsible for the items going missing and I don't think you would find too many witnesses behind those closed doors. And if the hierarchy were sympathetic to the non-production of the material then I should think the task would be impossible.

This is what I was trying to say.

I don't think this material is going to be made public for a very long time, if ever.

[lynn cates]

reconciliation

Hello Belinda. Perhaps not. But it is difficult to reconcile such a Piranha Brothers approach with an, "Everything is all right here--no conspiracy afoot" attitude. Those ledgers must be bloody well important to evoke that kind of reaction.

Cheers.
LC

[belinda]

Hello Belinda. Perhaps not. But it is difficult to reconcile such a Piranha Brothers approach with an, "Everything is all right here--no conspiracy afoot" attitude. Those ledgers must be bloody well important to evoke that kind of reaction.

Cheers.
LC

There must be something that goes way beyond the Ripper indeed, the reaction is out of proportion if we are only talking about a lone kiiller acting out his rage on destitute women.