The Missing Policemen

[mariab]

Hello Debra,
Unless the digital picture I have looks different from the original (for instance, if it was shot with a very strong flash, which severely altered the light vs. shadows relation, making any long lines at the bottom disappear), I'm very sorry to say that there REALLY doesn't seem to be any “g“ for “Doughty“ in there. But perhaps it looks different on the file that you have?
I even went to a digital Photo Shop with the file and “cleaned it up“ electronically. I've posted this “cleaned up“ file on the Examiner 2 thread.I've tried attaching it again here,but it seems to be too big of an electronic file to be uploaded.You can still look it up in the Examiner 2 thread, though.
What I'm reading is either “Mc Dovertly“ or “Mc Doverthy“. Could the latter be mis-written or redacted, and meant to mean “Doherty“? When was this picture shot, and might there've been already a redaction undergone here?! As for “Thomas Kellegey“, I see a “g“, not a “y“ there.
I also seriously doubt that it says “Mr“ before the name. “Mr Jenkinson“ and “Mr Balfour“ are inscribed very differently, both identical to one another. In addition to this, there are NO other cases of a “Mr“ in front of the names of “regular people“ in this list, besides the likes of Jenkinson and Balfour.
An idea I had pertaining to the “Mr“ vs. “Mc“ conundrum is to compare the inscription for William Magrath in the Special Branch ledgers, which is spelled “William Mc Grath“ in the SB ledger. If one of you has a copy of the ledger with the Magrath entry, it would be of benefit to compare the inscription “Mc“ in “Mc Grath“ and see if it matches the inscription “Mr“/“Mc“(?) before “Dovertly“/“Doverthy“. Obviously it's a long shot, since it's not a given that the Magrath entry was written by the SAME Special Brand person who put in the “Dovertly“/“Doverthy“ entry, but still, it wouldn't hurt to check this out, would it?

[mariab]

Simon Wood wrote: If it's a Special Branch file, surely the entry should read "Covertly".
Ha ha ha, good one!
By the way, I can send the electronically cleaned up file per PM, if anyone is interested. Or you can look it up attached to my post #537 in the Examiner 2 thread.

[Debra A]

Hello Debra,
Unless the digital picture I have looks different from the original (for instance, if it was shot with a very strong flash, which severely altered the light vs. shadows relation, making any long lines at the bottom disappear), I'm very sorry to say that there REALLY doesn't seem to be any “g“ for “Doughty“ in there. But perhaps it looks different on the file that you have?
I even went to a digital Photo Shop with the file and “cleaned it up“ electronically. I've posted this “cleaned up“ file on the Examiner 2 thread.I've tried attaching it again here,but it seems to be too big of an electronic file to be uploaded.You can still look it up in the Examiner 2 thread, though.
What I'm reading is either “Mc Dovertly“ or “Mc Doverthy“. Could the latter be mis-written or redacted, and meant to mean “Doherty“? When was this picture shot, and might there've been already a redaction undergone here?! As for “Thomas Kellegey“, I see a “g“, not a “y“ there.
I also seriously doubt that it says “Mr“ before the name. “Mr Jenkinson“ and “Mr Balfour“ are inscribed very differently, both identical to one another. In addition to this, there are NO other cases of a “Mr“ in front of the names of “regular people“ in this list, besides the likes of Jenkinson and Balfour.
An idea I had pertaining to the “Mr“ vs. “Mc“ conundrum is to compare the inscription for William Magrath in the Special Branch ledgers, which is spelled “William Mc Grath“ in the SB ledge. If one of you has a copy of the ledge with the Magrath entry, it would be of benefit to compare the inscription “Mc“ in “Mc Grath“ and see if it matches the inscription “Mr“/“Mc“(?) before “Dovertly“/“Doverthy“. Obviously it's a long shot, since it's not a given that the Magrath entry was written by the SAME Special Brand person who put in the “Dovertly“/“Doverthy“ entry, but still, it wouldn't hurt to check this out, would it?

Maria, I understand where you are coming from but this is just your opinion, formed after looking at a low quality digital photgraph and hardly an 'established' fact as you stated before.
None of us can be certain of the exact spelling without seeing the actual entry itself. I suppose we will have to wait and see how Trevor gets on before we can ever be certain.

[mariab]

Debra, no problem, I take the “established fact“-claim back – with an apology. Does this mean that in your digital file there's a “g“ visible? Weird!
I still think that this entry MIGHT pertain to the murder of Peter Doherty, and that the matter should be researched further. Since I have no idea in what year the picture was taken, it's not possible to hypothesize about a redaction having taken place here. At any rate, I wish Trevor Marriot the best of lucks with his endeavour.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Simon and crew,

Note how hepped up we are on all things Ripper. So just imagine, the year is 1935, or 1976, and you are the same person you are now. And your friend in police circles gets you access to the murder files. And you see you can take things home with you.

What would you do?

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Good to see you around these here parts.

Does my hypothetical policeman friend have access to both Scotland Yard and Old Jewry?

Regards,

Krilencu

[Johnr]

A marvellous emerging discussion on "missing" files..

Thanks very much Robhouse,

For putting me right with the East End political clubs and covert policing of sweatshops et cetera. Much obliged.
I found Monty's comments interesting.

The digitisation of Special Branch ledgers seems to have achieved what "redaction" (horrible word!) couldn't!

Chewing up last names and gobble-de-gooking them out.

As with most threads on this Casebook site, we started off talking about "missing policemen" and end up talking about "missing files".

oh well, so long as we can find our way back here again at some later date.

Good point by Roy Corderoy though, about the " Kid In A Sweet Shop" situation with police files back then.

Donald Rumbelow deserves a medal for recognising and rescuing police files and long lost photographs destined for the Chestnut Roasters Fire.

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Roy,

Good to see you around these here parts.

Does my hypothetical policeman friend have access to both Scotland Yard and Old Jewry?

Regards,

Krilencu

Hello Fred Haggerty,

As you are Krilencu, you probably have a set of keys to both places anyway, stamped "Made in Moscow".

best wishes

M

[Chris]

The digitisation of Special Branch ledgers seems to have achieved what "redaction" (horrible word!) couldn't!

Chewing up last names and gobble-de-gooking them out.

Quite right. If they really wanted to bury the contents of the ledgers, they should just have sent a set of low-resolution JPGs along to Casebook ...

[Hunter]

Chris,

I have recently spoken to a former PC who joined the force way back, was Stationed at Bethnal Green originally and spent a brief time at Commercial Street.

He recalled how the loft at Commercial Street station was opened and bundles of witness statement and report were found. A couple of these 'bundles' pertained to the Ripper investigation of 1888, he estimated the bundles to hold thousands of docs.

The result? The powers that be stated they were of no interest to the force and ordered their destruction. They were incinerated the next day.

The chap I spoke with said he and his colleagues held no great interest in the murders so did not protest. They were just happy to get rid of what they saw as clutter.

There was no sinister reason for the destruction, it was simply down to clearing space.

What you stated above Monty, explains much. Although Swanson was in charge of the investigation, information was filtered and summarized as it went up the chain of command. It would have been too much to make a comprehensive assimilation.

If one studies the existing files, you see reports going to CO from the various Divisions or Abberline or Moore. If a report from a Sergeant (White, Thick- etc) or a Divisional Inspector ( Chandler, Spratling- etc) was deemed important enough, it was passed along with the senior officer's report. Obviously much wasn't and remained at the various stations. Once sufficient time had been allowed, Swanson summarized those reports for the Commisioners and the Home Office. It is those reports that naturally survived as they were deposited in a more central location and is why there are few surviving documents from the lower ranking officers: that information being more easily dispersed and discarded over time.

[mariab]

Posted by Johnr:
The digitisation of Special Branch ledgers seems to have achieved what "redaction" (horrible word!) couldn't! Chewing up last names and gobble-de-gooking them out.
Posted by Chris:
Quite right. If they really wanted to bury the contents of the ledgers, they should just have sent a set of low-resolution JPGs along to Casebook ...

[Phil Carter]

Hello Hunter,

Yes, the posting from Monty does explain much, but I hate to say it, it boils down to heresay from what was written in the post, and no more. It is a thing told by one to another without proof of existance. I am not doubting Monty's word or re-telling, just that such "evidence" is unsupported as written above and is unsubstantiated as such. Not provable, though very interesting none the less.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

You make it sound as if hearsay is not admissible in a court of law Phil.

Of course, the story I mention is supported by Don Rumbelows story of how he rescued the Mary Kelly plates. Which where also due to be destroyed in similar fashion.

However we only have Dons word for that and I, for one, do not doubt it.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Neil,

If you read my reply, it wasn't against you at all, so one hopes you didn't take it personally. I was clear about this, but the fact is that it is one peron retelling a story that something existed, an action taken with that material mentioned, yet although interesting, is just something that is a retelling.

Thats just the way it is Neil. Don Rumbelow's involvement from the past has nothing to do with this gentleman's story, it is only a comparison. It doesn't make this story true, just shows that some things like this do happen sometimes. I did not involve Mr. Rumbelow in my comments either.

I didn't say it wasn't true, nor a reflection upon the teller either, nor that I doubted that it happened, but it is heresay nonetheless. Not a fact. Thoughts thereafter are suppostion upon this being a fact. Possble scenarios, should this have been the case.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

I read every word Phil,

Dons story differs as we have tangible evidence. Im not trying to verifying either story. Im merely stating these events happened.

I had a conversation with Stewart Evans (a police museum curator himself at one stage) who expressed his exasperation that Policemen are not historians, and are more than willing to destroy items they deem worthless for the sake of space.

I know this isnt an exciting enough explaination for you, not Deep Throated enough, however these 'mass culls' did happen and are the most likely explanation as to why reports are missing.

Monty