Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whitechapel CID

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Much appreciated Neil.

    Don't trouble yourself on my account for the Divisional Inspectors at King David Lane, or Arbour Sq.
    I mention them just by way of completing the picture. We have no correspondence throughout the Whitechapel Murders from these stations. My interest was only really Leman St. & Comm. St.

    Originally posted by Monty View Post

    Leman St had Divisional Chief Inspector John West assisted by Inspector Charles Pinhorn

    Commercial St had Divisional Chief Inspector Ernest Ellisdon assisted by Inspector Walter Beck
    Ok, I think you threw an extra "Chief" in there

    Simon's list described Ellisdon as, Divisional Inspector, which is what I had expected to see four of.
    Four Divisional Inspectors, one for each of the four stations - thats what I was originally looking for.

    Interesting that some correspondence - example: a couple written by Sgt White, or Inspector Moore, were submitted to F.G. Abberline (CID), yet below his name is written Supt. Arnold (Met).
    This suggests to me that the writer has submitted a copy to both officials, Abberline at CID and Arnold at Leman St.?
    Parallel paths of communication?

    In other cases we have Inspr. Moore, who was CID, write a report which was signed by Supd. Arnold, who was Met.
    The reason, I assume, is because this report was written at Leman St. Alternately we then have Swanson write his cover report on the same subject (John Cleary), but his report was signed by his own superior, John Shore Supt.

    Many thanks, Jon S.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #17
      General Reports

      Interesting that some correspondence - example: a couple written by Sgt White, or Inspector Moore, were submitted to F.G. Abberline (CID), yet below his name is written Supt. Arnold (Met).
      This suggests to me that the writer has submitted a copy to both officials, Abberline at CID and Arnold at Leman St.?
      Parallel paths of communication?

      In other cases we have Inspr. Moore, who was CID, write a report which was signed by Supd. Arnold, who was Met.
      The reason, I assume, is because this report was written at Leman St. Alternately we then have Swanson write his cover report on the same subject (John Cleary), but his report was signed by his own superior, John Shore Supt.
      Hi Jon,

      It may not have been the case in the 19th century, but General Reports submitted during my service (1974 to 2004) were concluded with the name of the reporting officer (to the right) and that of the Divisional Commander to whom it was submitted (to the left). The layout seems to have been slightly different, but I suspect that the essential practice may have been the same, namely that the concluding names were those of the reporting officer and of the senior officer to whom (at least nominally) the report was submitted.
      The opening phrase "I beg to report", later "I have to report" was not an affectation, but a procedural requirement, the logic of which has always escaped me.

      Regards, Bridewell.
      I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
        Hi Jon,

        It may not have been the case in the 19th century, but General Reports submitted during my service (1974 to 2004) were concluded with the name of the reporting officer (to the right) and that of the Divisional Commander to whom it was submitted (to the left).
        Thankyou Colin.
        We do see this is a number of police reports, so yes the addressee was written bottom left. This is what we see in Hutchinson's statement, which I mentioned recently on another thread.

        In your time do you recall officers, Inspectors?, being required to make a days-end report? I'm not sure of the correct terminology, but essentially a report which summarizes the days events that the officer was party to.

        Regards, Jon S.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mklhawley View Post
          Hi HDivision,

          You probably already know this, but Detective Inspector Chandler headed the Commercial Street Station
          I'm not sure what year you refer to Mike, but it does appear Divisional Inspector Ellisdon was the senior man at Commercial St.

          Here, with reference to the Tabram murder, we read..

          "....Inspector Elliston, of the Commercial-street Police-station, placed the case in the hands of Inspector Reid, of the Criminal Investigation Department."

          Regards, Jon S.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            I'm not sure what year you refer to Mike, but it does appear Divisional Inspector Ellisdon was the senior man at Commercial St.

            Here, with reference to the Tabram murder, we read..

            "....Inspector Elliston, of the Commercial-street Police-station, placed the case in the hands of Inspector Reid, of the Criminal Investigation Department."

            Regards, Jon S.
            Hi Jon,

            I think Mike is referring to CID structure. Each station had its own Dectectives. Reid had indeed taken over Abberlines role as the senior in Leman Street CID and Chandler at Commercial Street.

            Ellisdon was the Senior Policeman at Commercial Street and therefore once it had been established that a crime had been taken place, the investigation would have been handed over to CID whose senior man at that time was Chandler.

            Obviously all this changed as soon as Swanson and Abberline came in.

            Monty
            Monty

            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

            Comment


            • #21
              Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Chandler a uniformed duty inspector at the time of the Chapman murder?
              Best Wishes,
              Hunter
              ____________________________________________

              When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi Cris,

                I have got to stop relying on memory, its is failing me.

                You are correct (apologies to Jon for misleading) Chandler was a Divisional Inspector. I naturally assumed he was CID as he is preffixed DI Chandler. That coupled with the fact he was given charge of Chapmans case in Reids absence (Reid was on Annual leave) led me to err.

                Also he was put into plain clothes hours after the Chapman murder.

                Sincere apologies Guys.

                Monty
                Monty

                https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hand-Overs

                  Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  In your time do you recall officers, Inspectors?, being required to make a days-end report? I'm not sure of the correct terminology, but essentially a report which summarizes the days events that the officer was party to.

                  Regards, Jon S.
                  Hi Jon,

                  Not in my part of the world (which was Nottinghamshire). Senior officers were briefed verbally every day about what had occurred overnight - known colloquially as "Morning Prayers". The two detectives in each division who had been the CID presence during the night would have to complete a 'Night Crime' log for the information of the Divisional Commander & his/her deputy.
                  At Inspector level the hand-over was usually done orally by the night Inspector to his Early-Turn relief.

                  Regards, Bridewell.
                  I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Entered in error
                    Last edited by Hdivision; 11-28-2012, 11:56 AM. Reason: Entered in error

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X