The Secrets of the Special Reports

[Pcdunn]

I have been looking at this again and I now think it is most likely to be 12:50pm. Having said this, if Spratling was searching for a weapon (and bloodstains) around Buck's Row between 11am and 12pm on that day, as he says he was, then it was quite an achievement for him to complete his report (which includes details of this search), have it approved by his superintendent and then get it to Whitehall by ten minutes to one.

I was wondering if the London or Metropolitan police used the 24 hour system of time notation, as modern police departments do. It seems this was agreed upon in the mid-nineteenth century by some group of Greenwich timekeepers, and that would make "17:50 pm" a possibility for the handwritten notation.

It does seem, upon further research, that the British Navy was the first military group to adopt the 24 hour time notation, and the police did so in the 20th century, but I was curious if anyone knows more about this topic?

[David Orsam]

Monty - I must confess to a lack of comprehension on my own part regarding your post.

[David Orsam]

I wonder if there is any connection with this story and the Police Order of 7 February 1888,

Correction - that should be 9 February 1888, as correctly stated in my OP.

[Monty]

I say more a lack of comprehension.

Monty

[Scott Nelson]

Take a look at the Coles Murder reports. A couple of Home Office files at the crucial time are missing.

[David Orsam]

Looking at the Martha Tabram file, I see that a similar situation with missing reports appears to have occurred there too. There is a Special Report in the file, by Inspector Ellisdon, dated 10 August 1888, then the next report we have is that of Inspector Reid dated 16 August 1888 which is said to be the "3rd Special Report". As the report of 10 August 1888 begins with a description of the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the body of Martha Tabram in George Yard, one would naturally assume that this was the first special report and that somewhere between the 10th and 16th August the second special report was submitted. This would be almost identical to the Nichols case where the reports described as the first and third reports are seven days apart. However, it may not be as simple as that because at ff.35-36 of MEPO 3/140 (which is not reproduced in the Ultimate Sourcebook) is a schedule entitled "Succinct details of Murder of Woman named Martha Tabram alias Turner on 7th Augt 1888", described in the typed index as "Details of murdered woman in tabular form". This has a column headed "Date of police report", in which the entry says "7 Augt 1888". There is no surviving special report with this date and, if that report is a reference to the first special report, the one dated 10th must have been the second. We also have a report described as "5th Special Report" also by Inspector Reid, dated 24 August, but the fourth is clearly missing.

Just to add one more little thing. I found an article about the police in the Globe of 10 September 1888 which contained this sentence:

"It seems hardly credible, and yet it is perfectly true, that when the first of the three recent diabolical murders in Whitechapel occurred about a month ago, Mr Superintendent Williamson, though attending daily at Scotland-yard, in charge of the Detective Department, received no notice whatever for a whole week that any such crime had been committed, and that this happened not accidentally or through carelessness, but in accordance with a deliberate plan on the part of the Commissioner of Police."

Leaving aside that the paper has got Williamson's rank wrong - he was then the Chief Constable at CID - does anyone else think this is a remarkable example of what was surely an inside briefing against Charles Warren? I mention it in this thread because I wonder if there is any connection with this story and the Police Order of 7 February 1888, whereby Special Reports were to be initially submitted to a superintendent at Executive Branch of the Commissioner's Office rather than directly to the CID. In other words, I wonder if the above story in the Globe is somehow, at least in part, a reflection of dissatisfaction with this rather strange new arrangement.

[David Orsam]

There are initials on the cover which I cannot entirely decipher (but quite possibly they are the initials of Inspector William Davis)

Having seen some original examples from 1900 of the signature of Superintendent (as he then was) William Davis I can now confirm that it is indeed his initials on the cover of the first special report dated 31 Aug. His "W" looks like "CO" so his initials look like "COD" hence the uncertainty but it is actually "WD".

Inspector Davis was the person who wrote "3rd Special Report" and "327/3" on the cover of the 7 Sept report so if it was an administrative error it was his mistake.

[David Orsam]

[B] Interestingly, and unusually, there also appears to be a time of receipt written in manuscript within the stamp but it is a little hard to decipher. My best attempt is that it reads 11.50pm (however it initially looked to me like it read 17.50pm which can’t be right so there is a small chance that it says 12.50pm).

I have been looking at this again and I now think it is most likely to be 12:50pm. Having said this, if Spratling was searching for a weapon (and bloodstains) around Buck's Row between 11am and 12pm on that day, as he says he was, then it was quite an achievement for him to complete his report (which includes details of this search), have it approved by his superintendent and then get it to Whitehall by ten minutes to one.

[Monty]

I was actually going on my notes David, made a little while back.

I've re-read your posts and now 'get' what you are trying to say. The February 9th PO was, I suspect, laid down due incorrect, or rather poor, referencing, which looked to me, when I conducted my research, to have continued in the Nichols case.

I must confess, that was an assumption on my part. However, as I say, I see what you mean now. When I get the chance, I shall review my notes again.

Cheers
Monty

[David Orsam]

I thought the "smiling winking face' made it clear I was teasing.

Spratling compiles the first special report, outlining the known facts as on the 31st. Local Inspector Helson compiles the second special report outlining CID investigations and acting Supt Davies compiles the third special report outlines the suspect situation at the time, specifically Pizer. These latter reports are dated the 7th.

Davis, covering Arnold, report was the only H division report amongst the three, this due to the fact H, and specifically Thick, were given the task of running Pizer to group, most likely due to the fact Thick stated he knew him as Leather Apron.

Apologies Monty, the humour was a little too sophisticated for me!

But I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I don't think your analysis is correct. Are you relying on the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook? If so, then I can understand the confusion. If, however, you are basing what you say on a viewing of the MEPO file then fine but I still don't agree with you.

What you call the report of acting Supt Davis is not his report at all. It is the cover sheet of Inspector Helson's report. I believe that Inspector William Davis was of A Division and based at Central Office in the Executive Branch. It was to him that Helson's report was being submitted in the absence of Superintendent Cutbush, on leave. What you are referring to as Davis's report is no more than his summary (for the AC) of what Helson has told him in his report. You will note that Helson includes reference to Pizer as Leather Apron in his report.

In short, the file contains only one report dated 7 Sept 1888 which is labelled on the cover as the "3rd report".

Evidently my post was not very clear on the point but that was basically what I was trying to explain from my reading of the MEPO file.

[lynn cates]

thieves

Hello David. thanks.

Well, sometimes a thief will bypass one item for another.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

I thought the "smiling winking face' made it clear I was teasing.

Spratling compiles the first special report, outlining the known facts as on the 31st. Local Inspector Helson compiles the second special report outlining CID investigations and acting Supt Davies compiles the third special report outlines the suspect situation at the time, specifically Pizer. These latter reports are dated the 7th.

Davis, covering Arnold, report was the only H division report amongst the three, this due to the fact H, and specifically Thick, were given the task of running Pizer to group, most likely due to the fact Thick stated he knew him as Leather Apron.

Monty

[David Orsam]

Lol sorry this forum is full of advertisements. In nearly every other post you will find "and the damning evidence will be revealed on my new book!". Monty' doesn't do thatn but maybe he'll give u a page number

In fairness to him, his book is excellent on police procedure but at the same time, in fairness to me, I don't think it does contain most of the matters I have raised in this thread.

[RockySullivan]

I assume you are making a little joke. But I'm serious, I don't know what he means.

Lol sorry this forum is full of advertisements. In nearly every other post you will find "and the damning evidence will be revealed on my new book!". Monty' doesn't do thatn but maybe he'll give u a page number

[David Orsam]

He means "naming the jack ripper". Everyone you need to know you can find in there.

I assume you are making a little joke. But I'm serious, I don't know what he means.