Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Special Branch ledger entries relating to the Whitechapel Murders

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    Excellent! So we have a dating system for 52983. At a guess, both the Churchill and the Medbey entries would be mid to late November 1888. (Assuming the volume of material went back up immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.) Though apparently the Prince of Wales's visit to Middlesbrough, which Debs referred to on the same page as the Medbey entry, was on 23 January 1889. But if there are some other entries between them, that could work.

    As "Medbey" doesn't seem to be a known surname, I wonder whether it should be "Medley"?
    I have previoulsy explained that the SB Ledgers were an early form of collators system which means that any information gathered by officers or sent to the police anonymously was recorded, so researchers shouldnt get carried away with some of these entries as some may be of a malicious nature,or completely unfounded

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      I have previoulsy explained that the SB Ledgers were an early form of collators system which means that any information gathered by officers or sent to the police anonymously was recorded, so researchers shouldnt get carried away with some of these entries as some may be of a malicious nature,or completely unfounded

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      I doubt anyone here was getting too carried away by the idea of Mr Churchill being the Ripper.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

        I doubt anyone here was getting too carried away by the idea of Mr Churchill being the Ripper.
        No, but what I do see are people getting carried away with what is in the SB ledgers and it highlights my remarks about how the ledgers were used

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          No, but what I do see are people getting carried away with what is in the SB ledgers and it highlights my remarks about how the ledgers were used

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          What I see is people doing collaborative research.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

            What I see is people doing collaborative research.
            into what could be a combination of malicious, false and unfounded information gathered back then in 1888 !!!!!!

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              into what could be a combination of malicious, false and unfounded information gathered back then in 1888 !!!!!!

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              You wrote a book on it.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                You wrote a book on it.
                Yes and in that book I highlighted the flaws in what I saw in the ledgers, and went to great lengths to show what they were used for and how they were formulated. They were an early collators system in which information was collated, that information was gathered from a variety of sources, i,e the public stopping an officer on the street and giving information, anonymous information being received in the post etc etc. I am not suggesting that all should be disregarded but it is clear from what I have read when exmaining the ledgers first hand before they were destroyed that great care should be taken when assesing and evaluating some of the entries

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Yes and in that book I highlighted the flaws in what I saw in the ledgers, and went to great lengths to show what they were used for and how they were formulated. They were an early collators system in which information was collated, that information was gathered from a variety of sources, i,e the public stopping an officer on the street and giving information, anonymous information being received in the post etc etc. I am not suggesting that all should be disregarded but it is clear from what I have read when exmaining the ledgers first hand before they were destroyed that great care should be taken when assesing and evaluating some of the entries

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Obviously.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    if
                    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                    Excellent! So we have a dating system for 52983. At a guess, both the Churchill and the Medbey entries would be mid to late November 1888. (Assuming the volume of material went back up immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.) Though apparently the Prince of Wales's visit to Middlesbrough, which Debs referred to on the same page as the Medbey entry, was on 23 January 1889. But if there are some other entries between them, that could work.

                    As "Medbey" doesn't seem to be a known surname, I wonder whether it should be "Medley"?
                    That's very interesting, and thanks for taking the time to work the numbering out R.J. and Chris. The Morris Mendelstein entry I was interested in appears two above the Medbey entry, which, going by what you've said, suggests that Eva Hartstein's husband to be was a member of the Berner St club before November 1888. I had no way of dating the entry before and that's interesting from the point of view that the Berner Street witness evidence of grapes and the Hartstein sisters seeing a grapestalk in the yard may have some point of connection if the Morris entry is a few months earlier (just an idea I am exploring).

                    Yes, the name Medbey only seems to appear as a typo for other names in documents, so very likely a similar sounding name.

                    As an aside, I hadn't noticed that there was an entry with the name Legrand in it until I looked through all this again yesterday. It's an anarchist related entry, some pamphlets being addressed to someone of that name. Just mentioning this as it I hadn't noticed anyone else mention it before and I've grapes on my mind now.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                      Thanks. So the numbering system is different for the "CID Registry" items, with the number after the slash indicating an individual document rather than a file. That was really what I was getting at when I asked whether there could be thousands of files.

                      Clutterbuck says the ledger is partly referring to incoming correspondence, and partly internal reports (pp 69, 70). What I'm not understanding is is why internal reports should have a "folio in the correspondence register", which all the entries have in the extracts I've seen, except those that have "CID Registry" instead.

                      From what you've just pointed out, is it all correspondence - either correspondence in the CID Registry, or correspondence indexed in the Special Branch correspondence register?
                      I see that I was wrong in thinking the entries that didn't have "CID Registry" in the last column had a folio number instead. A new thread on this subject on Casebook refers back to photos posted by Simon Wood in 2017.

                      Those include some entries with the folio column left blank and another with the reference 11/88 instead of a folio number. Interestingly that one also has an unsusual 52983 reference, in which the slash is followed not just by a number, but by "H Div. 12". So apparently some files under 52983 were numbered with a prefix "H Div.".

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I'm just curious. Obviously a fair number of photos of the pages of this historical record were taken, before it was destroyed by people who are supposed to be public servants. It's perhaps an unfortunate side-effect of Freedom of Information legislation that if people can play the game well enough to block immediate release of historical records, they think that somehow entitles them to destroy the records for all time.

                        I wonder if people have been collecting the photos that have been posted online, in the interests of conservation.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Click image for larger version  Name:	New Suspects.jpg Views:	0 Size:	129.3 KB ID:	590428
                          Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                          I'm just curious. Obviously a fair number of photos of the pages of this historical record were taken, before it was destroyed by people who are supposed to be public servants. It's perhaps an unfortunate side-effect of Freedom of Information legislation that if people can play the game well enough to block immediate release of historical records, they think that somehow entitles them to destroy the records for all time.

                          I wonder if people have been collecting the photos that have been posted online, in the interests of conservation.
                          Here are two entries which are Ripper related these were sent to me by the police before the registers were destroyed

                          The SB ledger contained 30.000 one line entries
                          The SB Register contained 6000 entries between 1888-1912

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            Click image for larger version Name:	New Suspects.jpg Views:	0 Size:	129.3 KB ID:	590428

                            Here are two entries which are Ripper related these were sent to me by the police before the registers were destroyed

                            The SB ledger contained 30.000 one line entries
                            The SB Register contained 6000 entries between 1888-1912

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Thanks for posting that image.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                              I wonder if people have been collecting the photos that have been posted online, in the interests of conservation.
                              Who's asking

                              I wonder where people stand in terms of discussing or posting entries they may or may not have collected.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                                Who's asking

                                I wonder where people stand in terms of discussing or posting entries they may or may not have collected.
                                I think that I have had the most dealings with these records and I am more than happy to answer any questions relating to them to help reserarchers get a beter understanding of them and how they were used and what for.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X