Tweet
Part 1 - Spratling's Report
I didn’t want to disrupt the Lechmere thread more than it already has been so I thought I would start a new one (and I hope this is the most appropriate place). Further to the discussion in that thread about Inspector Spratling’s report dated 31.08.88, I have taken a look at the microfilmed copy of the original at the National Archives (MEPO 3/140) and have noticed a few small things which I thought I would report to the board.
There is a date-stamp on the cover of Spratling's report (f 241), the contents of which are too faint from the microfilm copy to be able to see in full but the word "AUG" is clearly visible so it must be date-stamped "31 AUG 1888". 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).
This date-stamp has a very different shape to the normal C.I.D. received stamp. At the bottom, one can just make out the letters "EX" so I deduce from this (and from the fact that, at the top of page it says the report was "submitted through Executive"), that the stamp bears the word "EXECUTIVE". It would appear, therefore, that the report was stamped as received by the Executive Branch at Central Office on 31 August 1888 (and possibly the time of receipt noted too, perhaps because it arrived so late).
So I think what has happened is that Superintendent Keating has forwarded the report to the Executive Branch which would normally have meant that it went to Superintendent Cutbush (whose name and comments appear on the Martha Tabram reports) but he was apparently on leave of absence at the time. There are initials on the cover which I cannot entirely decipher (but quite possibly they are the initials of Inspector William Davis) followed by the words "for Supt" so this individual was evidently covering at CO for Cutbush on 31 August. Below this, two different individuals have written "To AC (CID)/" and "To Col Pearson for information" respectively. There then appears to be a signature beneath this which has been cut off on the microfilm copy. So an individual at the Executive appears to have forwarded the report to the ACC.
The fact that Supt Keating forwarded the report to the superintendent at the Executive (or more correctly his stand in) rather than the ACC, is consistent with P.O. of 9 February 1888 (referred to on the cover) - MEPO 7/50 - which states that in all cases of serious crime:
"A special report, containing the fullest obtainable information and the steps taken by Police, with the names of officers engaged in the inquiry, is to be sent to the Executive Branch immediately on the occurrence of a Crime of such importance as to require the submission of special reports".
I assume that the superintendent at Executive would have decided whether such report would be forwarded to ACC. However, it is interesting to note that this rather cumbersome procedure appears to have been changed soon afterwards. The General Orders of 1893 (MEPO 8/4) state that:
"A special report, containing the fullest available information and the steps taken by Police, with the names of officers engaged in the inquiry, is to be sent to Assistant Commissioner, C.I. Department, immediately on the occurrence of a Crime of such importance as to require the submission of special reports".
So the Executive Branch has been removed from the picture here and reports were now to be submitted direct to the ACC. This could have happened any time between 1888 and 1893 (which can no doubt be established from the Police Orders). For me, it explains why a different procedure was followed in later cases.
I hope this is found to be helpful. In respect of my interpretation of the annotations written on the cover of Spratling's report please bear in mind that I have not seen the original and was doing my best from a microfilm copy.
I didn’t want to disrupt the Lechmere thread more than it already has been so I thought I would start a new one (and I hope this is the most appropriate place). Further to the discussion in that thread about Inspector Spratling’s report dated 31.08.88, I have taken a look at the microfilmed copy of the original at the National Archives (MEPO 3/140) and have noticed a few small things which I thought I would report to the board.
There is a date-stamp on the cover of Spratling's report (f 241), the contents of which are too faint from the microfilm copy to be able to see in full but the word "AUG" is clearly visible so it must be date-stamped "31 AUG 1888". 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).
This date-stamp has a very different shape to the normal C.I.D. received stamp. At the bottom, one can just make out the letters "EX" so I deduce from this (and from the fact that, at the top of page it says the report was "submitted through Executive"), that the stamp bears the word "EXECUTIVE". It would appear, therefore, that the report was stamped as received by the Executive Branch at Central Office on 31 August 1888 (and possibly the time of receipt noted too, perhaps because it arrived so late).
So I think what has happened is that Superintendent Keating has forwarded the report to the Executive Branch which would normally have meant that it went to Superintendent Cutbush (whose name and comments appear on the Martha Tabram reports) but he was apparently on leave of absence at the time. There are initials on the cover which I cannot entirely decipher (but quite possibly they are the initials of Inspector William Davis) followed by the words "for Supt" so this individual was evidently covering at CO for Cutbush on 31 August. Below this, two different individuals have written "To AC (CID)/" and "To Col Pearson for information" respectively. There then appears to be a signature beneath this which has been cut off on the microfilm copy. So an individual at the Executive appears to have forwarded the report to the ACC.
The fact that Supt Keating forwarded the report to the superintendent at the Executive (or more correctly his stand in) rather than the ACC, is consistent with P.O. of 9 February 1888 (referred to on the cover) - MEPO 7/50 - which states that in all cases of serious crime:
"A special report, containing the fullest obtainable information and the steps taken by Police, with the names of officers engaged in the inquiry, is to be sent to the Executive Branch immediately on the occurrence of a Crime of such importance as to require the submission of special reports".
I assume that the superintendent at Executive would have decided whether such report would be forwarded to ACC. However, it is interesting to note that this rather cumbersome procedure appears to have been changed soon afterwards. The General Orders of 1893 (MEPO 8/4) state that:
"A special report, containing the fullest available information and the steps taken by Police, with the names of officers engaged in the inquiry, is to be sent to Assistant Commissioner, C.I. Department, immediately on the occurrence of a Crime of such importance as to require the submission of special reports".
So the Executive Branch has been removed from the picture here and reports were now to be submitted direct to the ACC. This could have happened any time between 1888 and 1893 (which can no doubt be established from the Police Orders). For me, it explains why a different procedure was followed in later cases.
I hope this is found to be helpful. In respect of my interpretation of the annotations written on the cover of Spratling's report please bear in mind that I have not seen the original and was doing my best from a microfilm copy.
Comment