The Official Files

[SPE]

'Unimportant'

Hi Stewart
A most interesting thread, Stewart. Many thanks. In the matter of missing or stolen finds, I find all this most alarming. The repeated annotation "destroyed" or "missing" that you show is equally disturbing. Would this be purposeful destruction by the police for some reason, and if so, why? Space saving or what?
Thanks in advance for your opinion, Stewart.
Chris

These items (there are 227 listed) were destroyed or disappeared very many years ago, beyond living memory. They would have been assessed at the time (and investigated if necessary) and when deemed 'unimportant', or from 'cranks', simply destroyed to clear space.

[SPE]

Merely

Hello Stewart,
Thanks for supplying this document.. a few things that have again caught my eye. The stamped and stickered marks on the right hand side, overlapping each other... there seem to be two or three there, one a "cancelled", one a "closed" stamp. Has this "closed" stamp a date, as it has at the top of the page? I notice as well that the "closed" stamp date at the top of the page is 1990. Was that just this HO file, because I thought the date of the HO files was different, not 1990? I may be mistaken here.
Also, have you a copy of the signature at the bottom of the page, perchance?
Many thanks, in advance,
Phil

It merely shows 'Closed Until 1990'. All these documents were archived under the 'closed for 100 years rule'. Ergo, this document dated December 1889 was closed until 1990 (i.e. immediately after December 1989).

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Many thanks for this reply.

best wishes

Phil

[SPE]

Paul Bonner

I have just posted the below scans over on the Casebook site. They are extracts from the excellent and detailed survey of the official files carried out by Paul Bonner for the BBC in the early 1970s and mention the missing suspects files. With the mention of D'Onston I thought they may be of particular interest to How.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Stewart:

They most certainly are interesting as are all the scans you share. Without them, very few people would ever see important facts and remarks made in the past within official files which are instructional and beneficial to the Ripperologist's continuing studies.

From my perspective, two things are evident in the Bonner notes right off the bat.

One is that he definitely saw the files on RDS....having noted his "Bohemian" lifestyle...something that Roots commented on and a description which I think, at least, couldn't be pulled out of thin air.
The other is that there was nothing available on whether the police followed up on Sherlock Stephenson's grand presentation of Davies buggering the victim in front of several doctors at the LH.

This is why I have difficulty...recently with Spiro Dimolianis...understanding how, at this point in time, it can be said that the police took RDS seriously, considering he didn't go to an Inspector who didn't know him...but one that knew him and those certain proclivities of his. D'Onston's behavior is certainly suspicious....I never doubted that...but there's a difference between suspicious behavior and a bona fide Ripper suspect. Again, as we all know, Paul Bonner's timely and thoughtful notes on whats contained in those files shows nothing damning.

If RDS had approached an inspector ( Lets take West as an example...), and laid the same spiel on him on Boxing Day...who would or could doubt that Inspector West would have responded in a different way than Roots did ? Stephenson was either fortunate that he approached Roots on Boxing Day or knew he would be seeing him at SY...

I still maintain that the most significant aspect related to Marsh going to see Roots was that Marsh brought along a sample of RDS' handwriting to give the police in order to link Stephenson to the number of missives sent in to the police, maybe even the press.

[Paul]

Brilliant. Excellent stuff. Thanks again, Stewart.

[Mike Covell]

Simply breathtaking. Thanks for sharing.

[Chris G.]

Simply breathtaking. Thanks for sharing.

I totally agree. It's thrilling and breathtaking to see the original files. We can theorize all we like but to see the actual documents of the time is something else. Thanks, Stewart.

Chris

[Cris Malone]

Ditto, thank you, Stewart for presenting this.

I have a question or maybe an observation that has been on my mind since this appeared in The Ultimate.

Bonner mentions that these files must have been requested by SY in January, 1889 and certainly there seems to be nothing after that date, so that means any suspects compiled afterwards simply are not there... which probably explains the absence of Druitt, Kozminski and Ostrog. Many of the files appear to be from other divisions outside of 'H' Division... probably an effort at better coordination and a comprehensive review at that point.

And even with these files up to Jan. '89, Bonner mentions what seems to be a lot missing already going by cover sheets and references to file numbers.

Is my assumption correct?

[SPE]

A Long Time

That was a long time ago How.

[Anna Morris]

In the list produced in post #3, questioning of Israel Schwartz appears to have taken place on NOVEMBER 1, 1888. A report of Schwartz' interview was noted on NOVEMBER 5, 1888. Other items seem to have been accumulated or filed at times close to the pertinent crimes so what does this mean, if anything?

Schwartz was not part of the official inquest. We know so little about him. Why was he interviewed over a month after the murder if that is what the dates mean? (This brings to my mind my ponderings about Schwartz being the witness at the Seaside Home...IF that ever happened, etc., etc., etc.......)

[Rob Clack]

In the list produced in post #3, questioning of Israel Schwartz appears to have taken place on NOVEMBER 1, 1888. A report of Schwartz' interview was noted on NOVEMBER 5, 1888. Other items seem to have been accumulated or filed at times close to the pertinent crimes so what does this mean, if anything?

Schwartz was not part of the official inquest. We know so little about him. Why was he interviewed over a month after the murder if that is what the dates mean? (This brings to my mind my ponderings about Schwartz being the witness at the Seaside Home...IF that ever happened, etc., etc., etc.......)

It's a report written on the 1 November by Abberline replying to a Home Office letter. it was about the about Schwartz's statement and what was meant by the term 'Lipksi'

Rob

[Anna Morris]

It's a report written on the 1 November by Abberline replying to a Home Office letter. it was about the about Schwartz's statement and what was meant by the term 'Lipksi'

Rob

Thanks, Rob!

[String]

Save our records office:

http://www.lowestoftjournal.co.uk/ne...aign-1-5421048

[Howard Brown]

Hats off to Stewart,

Even in my two-meal town, the local library would never consider doing what this one is.

Referring to the planned closure of the record office and the removal of Lowestoft archive material to a multi-million pound Heritage Lottery funded facility called The Hold in Ipswich, Mr. ( Stewart ) Evans said: “It is another example of the alienation of the local populace.
“I deplore the removal of these valuable local archives to some far-flung repository that not everyone is in a position to attend without spending much time and money to access them.
“This surely discourages the new younger generation from developing a truly hands-on skill of researching history and building their interest to a degree that they would not know should the records be moved, and that tapping a keyboard cannot replace.

“This is typical of the modern trend of actions by local authorities doing anything to save cash and which have seemingly no interest in our history.”