Witness statement

A. Yes, my name is Pyotr Leontyevich Sablin. I am currently employed as Postal Secretary at the Harbour Materials Inspection Bureau. I have held this post since the autumn of 1934, with minor interruptions for illness over the last two winters.

A. I first read the letter on the morning of 10 March. It came via standard internal postbag, which arrives from the depot sorting office around 08:15. The envelope was marked 0417 in the corner, though there was no accompanying docket in the usual pink slip.

A. The complaint was regarding a delay in the delivery of steel plate sheets for Shipyard No. 2, specifically for the repair of the hull of the tug 'Geroy Murmanska.' The complainant, whose name I recall as O.M. Krupin, stated that expected delivery had not occurred by 7 March, causing his crew to wait idle.

A. The letter was addressed generically—'Ministry Supplies, Harbour'—without a specific department. According to normal rules, I logged it in Ledger Vol. V and prepared a receipt on Form 27/56. The letter was photocopied per March procedure, then relayed to Deputy Inspector Sharov. I recall making note of the time: 09:18 in the desk log.

A. None that I noted. Wednesday is always busy after the Tuesday steamer from Kandalaksha, but sorting was completed by 08:45. The only slight difference was that Ms. Efremova’s tea trolley was late—she came along at 08:55 instead of 08:45—but this did not impact my duties.

A. I wrote 09:18 on the cover log as I placed the copy in the Deputy Inspector's file tray. Mr. Yavkin was arriving then for his own shift change; he remarked on the amount of paperwork. However, later when reviewing the incident in the Bureau control ledger, I saw the entry as 09:29 for the same action. I initially thought this was my error.

A. It was during a weekly ledger check with Ms. Nikitina in Records. She called my attention to the forwarding entry, showing 09:29 in their control log. We compared the copy from the main office tray and the times did not agree by eleven minutes. I remember because I checked both entries twice.

A. I left both as they were, since I wasn’t sure which was in error. I notified Deputy Inspector Sharov at the end of my shift. He told me not to amend either page until the review board had checked the forms. He seemed unconcerned and said it would be simple to clarify.

A. No. The letter was plain, only the number 0417 stamped in two places: upper right of the letter and also faintly on the internal envelope. The central office stamp was clear. No timestamps, no special markings, nothing out of the ordinary; just that number.

A. Yes, briefly with Ms. Nikitina, as mentioned, and also with Mr. Yavkin over lunch in the canteen. He remembered seeing me at the file tray just after the clock chimed, but could not recall the precise minute. He thought it was after the lorry from Azovtrans left, which is usually 09:20 or so.

A. Ms. Nikitina checked the sign-in sheet for Deputy Inspector Sharov. His entry for 09:25 aligns with neither my 09:18 nor their 09:29. The office wall clock was set forward by five minutes after the Monday maintenance, but that alone does not fit the eleven minute gap.

A. Not in terms of times. Sometimes the receipt book numbering skips a line or two if the carbon paper fails, but I do not recall a consistent difference of eleven minutes like in this case. The rest of the correspondence that week was orderly.

A. I filed the original as usual and set aside our copy for Deputy Inspector Sharov as instructed. At the Friday meeting, he noted both times were 'acceptable' and said it was 'far better to reassure the sender than to question bureau order.' No one asked me to alter either entry.

A. If the difference is under fifteen minutes, we typically leave both entries unless the sender or recipient specifically appeals. In this instance, I followed section 12 of the Proceedings Manual, which states any correction must be signed by the office head. This did not occur.

A. I have seen 0417 stamped on several quarterly returns from the materials supplier, usually in March or October shipments. It is a routine warehouse mark, I believe, though its exact meaning is not clear to me.

A. I believe it has no great consequence. Both logs show the complaint moved to the correct office and the repair was completed the following Monday. Maintaining accurate records is vital, but in this case, there was no delay in action by the ministry. I am confident the sender received appropriate reassurance.