Question About Aug 31st Spratling Report

[Tom_Wescott]

My son is visiting me, and decided to read 'Ultimate JTR Companion' for light reading. He noticed something I never had, but which someone here might have an explanation for, and that is - why is Spratling's report dated January 31st, 1888? I'm looking at page 22 of my hardcover first edition, and it reads...

C.C. Reference Divisional Reference
Submitted through Executive
J. Division

Subject report Re murder of a woman unknown at Bucks Row, Whitechapel 31st inst.

31.1.88

1st Special Report submitted in accordance with P.O. 9th Febry. 1888.
To/A.C. Constbl
To Col P[] for information [missing]

Then follows Spratling's report. By why the January date and the reference to February? Any thoughts?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

My son is visiting me, and decided to read 'Ultimate JTR Companion' for light reading. He noticed something I never had, but which someone here might have an explanation for, and that is - why is Spratling's report dated January 31st, 1888? I'm looking at page 22 of my hardcover first edition, and it reads...

C.C. Reference Divisional Reference
Submitted through Executive
J. Division

Subject report Re murder of a woman unknown at Bucks Row, Whitechapel 31st inst.

31.1.88

1st Special Report submitted in accordance with P.O. 9th Febry. 1888.
To/A.C. Constbl
To Col P[] for information [missing]

Then follows Spratling's report. By why the January date and the reference to February? Any thoughts?

At some stage someone must have written 31.1.88 for 31.8.88, I suppose.

I assume the reference to February means that the report was submitted in accordance with procedures that had been laid down by Police Orders on 9 February.

[Stewart P Evans]

Error

At some stage someone must have written 31.1.88 for 31.8.88, I suppose.
I assume the reference to February means that the report was submitted in accordance with procedures that had been laid down by Police Orders on 9 February.

Having made a check of the appropriate folio I can confirm that the date should read 31.8.88 so this is either a transcription or typesetting error. Chris is correct in his interpretation of the 9 February reference. I am also able to add that the 'Col[P]' mentioned is the Assistant Commissioner, Colonel Pearson, the force administrator. Well spotted that boy.

[Lechmere]

It actually says Pearson:

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes...

It actually says Pearson:

Yes, I know it does, but at the time the 'earson' was deemed illegible and rendered thus 'P[ ]' in the Sourcebook, the [] being used in the book to indicate illegible or missing text.

[Stewart P Evans]

Another point...

Another point, I now think that following 'To/AC' is not 'Constbl' but is 'To/AC (CID)'

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Stewart and Chris,

Thanks for your feedback. I suspected it was a typo, but with the 'February' following, I decided it was worth asking about. And my son got a big kick out of seeing the book's author reply! It's embarrassing that I must have read that page over a dozen times when writing my Nichols article for Ripper Notes a few years back, and I never noticed that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stewart P Evans]

Transcribing

Hi Stewart and Chris,
Thanks for your feedback. I suspected it was a typo, but with the 'February' following, I decided it was worth asking about. And my son got a big kick out of seeing the book's author reply! It's embarrassing that I must have read that page over a dozen times when writing my Nichols article for Ripper Notes a few years back, and I never noticed that.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

Tom, transcribing all of the official records from what were sometimes very difficult documents to read was a mammoth task. It occupied spare time over several years and the text was revisited from time to time when various points arose. But, needless to say, the odd typographical error and literal sneaked by and some, like this, still lurk, waiting to be found. As the various names of more obscure senior police officers or Home Office officials became familiar, as did some of their handwriting, it was possible to interpret more of the appalling signatures and initials. Some may recall me telling the story of how, as a computer tyro, I managed to delete the whole manuscript, transcribed up to the Eddowes murder, and had to start all over again.