The Official Papers Into The Matter Known As The Hound of the Baskervilles (DCC/1435/89 refers) [Paperback]

The Official Papers Into The Matter Known As "The Hound of The Baskervilles" by Kieron Freeburn is a great addition for those who like to delve further into the Baskerville case. Written as a case file it includes reports by the Metropolitan police, the Coroner (on Sir Charles and the convict Selden), the Devon County Constabulary, and much more.
The most delightful part to me was the content of the reports. Having been a law enforcement officer for 12 years I can say that they are written authentically in the style of most police officers. The report s present not only the facts but the comments that officers tend to make that make the prosecution cringe and ask "why did they say that in an official document?" I guess things haven't changed much!
The reports also display exactly the prejudices I would expect from one jurisdiction being infringed on by another. All in all, this book was a delightful read. I recommend it highly to those interested in the official response to the case that Holmes might not have handled as well as we thought.

In anticipation of this review, I re-read The Hound of the Baskervilles both as a baseline and to enjoy again what must be one of the finest murder mysteries ever written. The HOUND is also the most filmed of all crime novels [Christopher Frayling in BAKER STREET JOURNAL, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Spring 2008)], and obviously the most famous Sherlock Holmes story of all time.

Some authors might wilt in the face of such history. Thankfully, former police investigator Kieron Freeburn does not. Caching his effort in a "found" trove of paperwork at auction, Freeburn presents much new insight into the famous thriller in the form of police reports, coroner examinations, telegrams, and more.

There are, it must be said, typos and also inconsistencies. While some of these might conceivably be argued to be intentional--providing a sense of realism in the documents?--more likely this debut effort simply needed a final proof from someone familiar with the source material. None of these are deal breakers, but cumulatively, they conspire to break the narrative's flow and one's concentration of it. For example:

Did Selden escape from HMP Dartmoor on Oct 1 or Oct 15? (page 6 v page 7)
Is Selden's prison identification number suffix 89G or 81G? (page 6 v pages 39 and 96)
Did Dr. Mortimer receive the telegram from Pinkerton's on July 12 or July 10? (page 26 v page 126)
Was the postmaster's son James Wright or James Thomas? (page 42 v page 49)

These are all, I believe, conjecture, relative to information presented in the original tale. But shouldn't they at least agree?

More critically, there are several objective errors throughout the text. For example:

The first coroner's report on page 3 is titled with the name of Sir Henry instead of Sir Charles.
Conversely, it is Sir Charles instead of Sir Henry who is said to have argued with John Barrymore in para. 85 on page 58.
Sir Henry gifted his old Canadian clothes to Barrymore (later given to Selden) because his London outfits had arrived, not the other way 'round. (para. 69 on page 49)
It is Dr. Watson not Dr. Mortimer who displeases the local police for failing to report Selden's whereabouts. (para. 137 on page 85)
John Barrymore refers to his wife as his sister at least twice. (first para. on page 100 and last para. on page 103, both in Barrymore's witness statement)
Dr. Mortimer describes himself as practicing medicine for "40 years" while Holmes in the original story correctly identifies Mortimer as "a young fellow under thirty"! (first para. on page 111 in Mortimer's witness statement)
Sir Charles was to have left for London on May 5, despite the day-later reference in Mortimer's witness statement. (page 112)
Sir Henry's introductory letter to Dr. Mortimer references the latter's letter of July 14, yet the letter which precedes it in Chapter Three is dated July 18. (page 129 vs page 127) Baskerville's own reference to "Pilkington's" (instead of the correct Pinkerton's) may be an intentionally seeded mistake.

There are some additional obvious typos. For example:

Mrs Holmes (last para. on page 16)
no comma necessary in the famous newspaper clipped warning (para. 31 on page 31)
"fared" not "faired" (para. 43 on page 36)
"It" not "I" (last para. on page 102)
"Steel" not "Steele" (first para. on page 151)
"for" not "fort" (third para. on page 152)
"knew" not "new" (last para. on page 153)

There are some missing apostrophes. For example: "Miss Lyons father" on page 67 and "Hounds lair" on page 154. There are some misapplied italic page numbers in the Table of Contents. Finally, there should be no 's' in Merripit House (many references throughout, e.g., 13, 43, 74, 147).

The cursive (Copperplate) typefaces take some getting used to; to be fair, the Introduction offers a caution. As well, an effort has been made to use several different typefaces in order to approximate handwriting from different people. As for the book design, I really like the front cover, however the pipe on the back is trying a bit too hard. The handful of photographs are unfortunately too dark, especially the hound.

Having said quite all that, one might get the impression that I was too busy redlining typos to enjoy The Official Papers Into The Matter Known As The Hound of the Baskervilles. In truth, this review is a case of bad news first. As it is, this body of work is unequaled in its scope, and will reward any Sherlockian who has read the original and wishes to increase his or her appreciation of the tale's infamous environs. Freeburn's final Explanatory Notes are particularly useful. Why, indeed, did Mortimer wait until the last moment (the very day Sir Henry was to arrive in London) to engage Holmes?

There are also some stirring moments of inspiration here. Of Selden's death on the moor, which may or may not have been hastened by the hound, Detective Superintendent Johns from the Devon County Constabulary confesses to "some satisfaction that this vile felon met his end by a broken neck, if not at the end of a rope upon the scaffold, then by some other means." (!) Then there is the supplementary police statement of John Barrymore, which sheds light on the previously unknown, shocking, and believable activities of Selden directly following his prison outbreak.

Because of his own professional experience, Freeburn successfully captures Lestrade's difficult position. Sent to assist Holmes by his reluctant superiors--a lengthy paper trail shows the suspicion with which Holmes was often regarded by his professional peers, in *both* jurisdictions--Lestrade is at once pressed into service, leaving no time to even notify local law enforcement. The lengthy report from the DCC evidences a general air of unease about the city slickers' intrusion into their local affairs, a feeling I imagine may still be accurate, both in Britain and here as well. Detective Superintendent Johns again: "I have a thought here that Mr Holmes may have been too clever for his own good." And from Scotland Yard's own Detective Chief Superintendent: "In my view this entire episode has been nothing more than a staggering waste of Metropolitan Police resources."

The few stylistic complaints and the greater number of inconsistencies and typos, all of which can easily be remedied on a second edition, do not diminish this unique effort. In the transatlantic spirit of Sherlockian scholarship, The Official Papers sheds light on one of Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest works, and is both admirable and enjoyable.

[The reviewer was provided with a complimentary copy of the book.]