The Secrets of the Special Reports

[GUT]

The number 2 (in 327) is very similar.

But the 7's are nothing alike.

However are they written by the same person?

[Wickerman]

Look at it this way.
That portion of text already provides us with a 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9.
So we are left with 2,4,6,0.

Which of those four above does it look most like?

[GUT]

If they are the same person and I suspect they are that wrote what we take to be a time and the "327" then the time post-dates 31 Aug.

I was also interested that it seems to have been forwarded pursuant to a directive of February 1888.

[GUT]

One further observation the "time" seems to be written in a stamp, I have no idea what the stamp says, does anyone else?

[The Good Michael]

12:30 PM

Mike

[Dr. John Watson]

12:30 PM

Mike

That's it exactly. 12:30 PM. Compare the questioned number with the "3" written on line above it. They're written the same, except that the short horizontal line that forms the top of the questioned number is either missing (having been written in haste) or now too faint to see.

John

[David Orsam]

One further observation the "time" seems to be written in a stamp, I have no idea what the stamp says, does anyone else?

From the few characters on the stamp that can be made out, and from other date stamps in the file, I believe that the stamp probably says:

METROPOLITAN POLICE

31 AUG 1888

EXECUTIVE BRANCH

[David Orsam]

But the 7's are nothing alike.

However are they written by the same person?

While I am no handwriting expert, and can't swear to this, I believe that the writing at the top is probably in the hand of the author of the report (i.e. Inspector Spratling). The writing at the bottom is definitely that of Acting Superintendent (Inspector) Davis, because he has signed it.

If the time noted is intended indicate the time the report was received by Executive Branch then we can eliminate the top handwriting. However, I assume that the document was date-stamped by a clerk in the Executive Branch and it may be that a clerk has also written the time of receipt on. Otherwise it would be the handwriting of Davis.

[David Orsam]

That's it exactly. 12:30 PM. Compare the questioned number with the "3" written on line above it.

For the reasons given in the above post, I don't think one should compare the handwriting of the time notation with the handwriting immediately above it because they will almost certainly have been written by two different individuals. I grant you, however, that it is unclear if it is a "5" or a "3".

[David Orsam]

Let me repost my post #15:

"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."

The evidential support that Spratling was carrying out searches between 11am-12pm on that day is best seen in the Evening Standard report of 4 Sept (also in the Morning Advertiser):

"Did you examine Buck's row? - Yes; between five and six o'clock in the morning, and also the railway and yards abutting on the street.

Did you examine the street for blood stains, I mean? - Yes, between eleven and twelve o'clock I examined Buck's row and Queen street, but found no blood stains in either. I subsequently, in company with Sergeant Godley, examined the East London District Railway embankment and the Great Eastern Railway yard for blood stains and weapons, but found none."

Leaving aside the mention of Queen Street (which I assume means Queen Anne Street), the above evidence is corroborated by the reports in the Star, Echo and Daily News. The Telegraph report (repeated word for word in the LWN) alone suggests that all the searches were done at 6am but from the above exchange that appears to have been an erroneous conjoining of two separate answers.

In his report, Spratling says: "The Stations and premises of the East London Railways, all the wharves and encloses in the vicinity have been searched but no trace of any weapon could be found there". This appears to be a reference to a search carried out after the search of Buck's Row and Queen [Anne] Street which he said was done between 11 and 12.

It may also be noted that the Illustrated Police News report or Spratling's evidence states:

"Witness, continuing, stated that he returned to the mortuary about noon on Friday."

So it was extremely impressive for him to have completed and signed his report, had it counter-signed by Superintendent Keating, and for it then to have received at Whitehall by 12:50pm that day, and even more so by 12:30, if that is indeed what happened.

[David Orsam]

Just to add one further point about the fact that someone appears to have noted the time of receipt within the date stamp.

Why would they have done this?

I have, so far, found no other examples of such a thing, either in the JTR MEPO file or other police files although there is admittedly only a small selection of files - at least that I have located - containing special reports received by the Executive Branch.

The stamp would have borne the date of receipt which is normally quite adequate. What extra information is added by the fact that the report came in to the Executive Branch during the early afternoon?

It is for that reason that I wondered if the report came in very late on Friday night, in fact during the early hours of Saturday morning, but the date stamp had not been switched over to the next day so it was stamped by the clerk as 31st August, with the time of 50 minutes after midnight written on - or intended to be written on - in to indicate this. Of course, if that was the intention, the chap has made a mess of it because 12:50pm indicates the afternoon (while 12:50am would have indicated the early hours of Friday morning). There was, in fact, no way of doing it other than altering the date from 31 Aug to 1 Sept and then noting 12:50am.

But that is idle speculation - and perhaps there was some unusual reason due to urgency of circulating the report why it was felt necessary to note that it came in at 12:50pm (or 12:30pm if you prefer).

[Dr. John Watson]

For the reasons given in the above post, I don't think one should compare the handwriting of the time notation with the handwriting immediately above it because they will almost certainly have been written by two different individuals. I grant you, however, that it is unclear if it is a "5" or a "3".

David, yes I see your point about two different writers, but if you look at the line below, you see a "3" written in an entirely different hand - so that would mean 3 different writers, no? On the other hand, although the questioned number appears in a stamped box, isn't it possible the writer is the same person who wrote the lines above?

By the way, I greatly appreciate posters like yourself who seek out original documents and use them to illustrate a point, as in this case. Shows you're not content to simply recycle or reinterpret the work of others. Keep it up!

John

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

East London Observer, 1st September 1888—

On discovering the body . . .

"Constable Neale [sic] at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary."

No PCs Thain and Mizen flashing answering lanterns, no PC Mizen fetching the ambulance, no Dr. Llewellyn conducting a kerb-side examination, no slaughtermen standing by the body in Buck’s Row, no Inspector Spratling lifting up Polly Nichols' clothes at the mortuary to discover she had been disemboweled, and no apparent evidence of Polly’s ulster and long dress having absorbed the blood so conspicuously absent from outside Mr Brown’s stable gates.

It sure is a bugger's muddle.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

David, yes I see your point about two different writers, but if you look at the line below, you see a "3" written in an entirely different hand - so that would mean 3 different writers, no?

Well my own tentative interpretation is that it is a "5" not a "3 but, as for there being three different writers, yes, I don't disagree. I'm suggesting the possibility of the clerk who date-stamped the document as potentially being the person who noted the time of receipt.

[David Orsam]

No PCs Thain and Mizen flashing answering lanterns, no PC Mizen fetching the ambulance, no Dr. Llewellyn conducting a kerb-side examination, no slaughtermen standing by the body in Buck’s Row, no Inspector Spratling lifting up Polly Nichols' clothes at the mortuary to discover she had been disemboweled, and no apparent evidence of Polly’s ulster and long dress having absorbed the blood so conspicuously absent from outside Mr Brown’s stable gates.

And no reliable source for the East London Observer's story?

(but interesting nevertheless!)