Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Natalie Severn]

But, Nats - he simply DID take credit for things that he didn't do. Smith said that the manager of the Central News agency "at once" brought the kidney to HIM personally; that the "solons of the metropolis enjoyed themselves at the expense of my humble [sic.] self" in connection with the kidney; and that HE personally handed over the kidney to the police surgeon for inspection; that HE, personally, instructed the surgeon to consult with various experts, and to report back to HIM immediately. It's hard to tell where the "me, me, me" bits end and the baloney begins.

Well Sam,I certainly dont recall this stuff being particularly offensive that you are citing .Anyway what about giving Henry Smith some cedit for standing out against the disgusting anti -semitism of Anderson ?

[Sam Flynn]

Whether you like it or not Henry Smith was Acting Commissioner for the City of London Police at the time of the Jack the Ripper"s murders and became Chief Commissioner of the City Police himself in 1890,so to say Smith was "taking credit" as you put it for the kidney business ,just sounds silly and inappropriate.

But, Nats - he simply DID take credit for things that he didn't do. Smith said that the manager of the Central News agency "at once" brought the kidney to HIM personally; that the "solons of the metropolis enjoyed themselves at the expense of my humble [sic.] self" in connection with the kidney; and that HE personally handed over the kidney to the police surgeon for inspection; that HE, personally, instructed the surgeon to consult with various experts, and to report back to HIM immediately. It's hard to tell where the "me, me, me" bits end and the baloney begins.

[timsta]

One dumb hoaxer?

There is no evidence, other than what Smith wrote, of any involvement of Dr. Sutton in the examination of the kidney section. That said, the fact that the piece of kidney 'had been put in spirits within a few hours of being removed from the body' does not dispel the idea that it may have been a hoax. Any such reasoning is basically flawed as the kidney could easily have been taken from any body that had been autopsied.

It seems to me that a strong possibility of the Lusk kidney being the product of a hoax is taken somewhat as an article of faith by most researchers, the reasoning being that a human kidney (if the kidney was indeed human) would be an item readily available to, for example, "doctors, medical students, mortuary attendants", etc.

My issue with this scenario is - and please correct if I'm wrong - that the information that the police were particularly interested in "doctors, medical students, mortuary attendants" etc. had been revealed in the press well before the arrival of the Lusk letter.

That being the case, would it not be a ridiculously rash venture for someone in one of those professions (or similar) to concoct such a hoax? It surely would take only the establishing of some link between the perpetrator and the kidney (perhaps someone could have noticed the absence of said organ, but only gave consideration to the event in hindsight, for example), and the hoaxer, I think, would have a lot of explaining to do.

I realize that the danger inherent wouldn't necessarily deter anyone - Wearside Jack springs to mind - but I do feel that it might make the hoax scenario a little less likely than seems to be widely assumed.

timsta

[Natalie Severn]

It wasn't his legacy to be tampering with in the first place - it was Lusk's, Openshaw's and the policemen trudging dangerous streets, doing proper work. That Smith took credit for work he had patenly not done is disgraceful....that might be alright for a B-list comedian or actor (although that in itself is questionable), but not for a public servant and high-ranking officer of the law.

Whether you like it or not Henry Smith was Acting Commissioner for the City of London Police at the time of the Jack the Ripper"s murders and became Chief Commissioner of the City Police himself in 1890,so to say Smith was "taking credit" as you put it for the kidney business ,just sounds silly and inappropriate.
To me anything Smith wrote in his entire autobiography totally pales in significance compared with the irresponsible and despicable remarks made by Anderson about the Polish "low class" Jewish Community in 1888,alleging they knew they were harbouring in their midst a grotesque murderer such as Jack the Ripper,and refusing to give him up to gentile justice.Henry Smith at least got his priorities right of that matter by refuting in the strongest terms,the racist and elitist filth Robert Anderson was spouting in his autobiography.
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Stewart,
Clearly differences of opinion do exist as to whether Smith can be taken seriously over this,and Paul Begg believes he could be right in what he says, and explains his reasons.But I take your point .... no "evidence" exists .
Best Regards
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

Flawed

Paul Begg states , as being of crucial significance here,the fact that this City Police Surgeon, Gordon Brown asked Dr Sutton as well "as another senior surgeon of the London Hospital" to meet with him,in consultation.The consensus being that the kidney had been put in spirits within a few hours of being removed from the body.Thus "dispelling of all hoaxes in connection with it" etc etc.
As I say your dispute should really be addressed to the author ,Paul Begg ,rather than myself,although I myself am perfectly happy to accept the surgeons opinions and therefore Paul"s reasoning over the matter in question.
Best
Norma

There is no evidence, other than what Smith wrote, of any involvement of Dr. Sutton in the examination of the kidney section. That said, the fact that the piece of kidney 'had been put in spirits within a few hours of being removed from the body' does not dispel the idea that it may have been a hoax. Any such reasoning is basically flawed as the kidney could easily have been taken from any body that had been autopsied.

[joelhall]

It wasn't his legacy to be tampering with in the first place - it was Lusk's, Openshaw's and the policemen trudging dangerous streets, doing proper work. That Smith took credit for work he had patenly not done is disgraceful....

no but his writing was. and how much better it would look if he was at the heart of one of the most famous cases of all time, the go-to guy for everyone

his legacy wasnt the case, it was how his vanity wanted him to be viewed as i see it.

joel

[Sam Flynn]

it is only too natural for someone to bias what is their legacy more than any place in a history book.

It wasn't his legacy to be tampering with in the first place - it was Lusk's, Openshaw's and the policemen trudging dangerous streets, doing proper work. That Smith took credit for work he had patenly not done is disgraceful.

it is merely their story told as they want it read.

...that might be alright for a B-list comedian or actor (although that in itself is questionable), but not for a public servant and high-ranking officer of the law.

[joelhall]

whatever our views on memoirs they are not evidence but personal views of events. all writers are allowed some degree of literal license when writing, and it is only too natural for someone to bias what is their legacy more than any place in a history book. it is merely their story told as they want it read.

to use an auto-biography as evidence is akin to using the spice girls to perform classical opera.

[Natalie Severn]

Sam, I wasn't chastising you, merely churling you.

' in Smith's case the errors and self-promotion are so obvious that they cast a long shadow over his credibility on this subject.'

Well said, Sam, but is not your statement very true for every single senior police officer involved in the case?
Apart from Charles Henry Cutbush of course who had the common decency to shoot himself before feeling forced to put pen to paper.

Isn"t it a little curious though AP,that in SUCH a high profile case as Jack the Ripper was,and with Supt, Charles Cutbush having been named in Macnaghten"s memorandum as Thomas Cutbush"s "uncle",we dont hear a dickie bird from him?
After the great splash the Sun newspaper had made about Thomas Cutbush being the ripper,you would have thought he ,as his supposed "Uncle Charles" would have come to his defence?After all the way Macnaghten left it was that he[Macnaghten]could think of three people MORE LIKELY--to have been the Ripper---therefore leaving Thomas Cutbush his "fourth" favourite!I would have expected Charles to have stirred himself at this point and said"Whoahh!----Steady on,chaps, our Thomas may be in an asylum for the mentally ill, but he is no Ripper!But not a peep! Maybe he knew better?

[Natalie Severn]

I would disagree with that opinion, but even if you are right in that assessment it certainly isn't saying a whole lot.



Maybe you didn't read what you thought you read, because Sam seems to have read the same book I did. Begg's arguments about the kidney are certainly not backed up with any real facts, just some rather loose speculation. For a comprehensive view of the whole Lusk kidney situation that I find a lot more in line with the actual evidence found in many sources already as well as some new information I've helped turn up that has not been published yet, try Evans & Rumbelow's Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates

instead.

I have elaborated on why I have found Smith not to be such a boastful dunderhead as people would have us believe, in my post above ,to Sam.I think it serves no useful purpose to dismiss everything he has to say.
I have read Evans and Rumbelow on the issue of the kidney, and while I can see the objection being made,I also believe Smith"s "slip" here-about the trimming of the kidney etc to be completely consistent with the types of memory "slips" found in Anderson and Macnaghten autobiographies.That Smith was saying more than that is what Paul is inferring and that whatever the inaccuracies of detail, there is every liklihood that Sutton WAS able to pass on a considered and expert opinion to Brown-therefore to dismiss what Smith is saying, in total,over the kidney could be throwing out the baby with the bathwater .Between Anderson telling us he knew "as a definitely ascertainable fact" the ripper was a low class Polish Jew ,whose people deliberately shielded him from gentile justice and who died shortly after entering a lunatic asylum,and Macnaghten telling us his prime suspect was a doctor of 41,when he meant Druitt -a schoolteacher and barrister- ....I know I much prefer the directness of Henry Smith who said that after twenty years had passed they were no nearer knowing where the ripper lived lived or who the ripper was than in the Autumn of 1888.
Cheers
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Joel - the issue with Smith isn't so much one of mistakes or foggy memory, but his barefaced cheek in saying "I did this" and "I did that", when we know full well that it wasn't he who did them. Bias is one thing, but passing other people's deed off as one's own, or fabricating events to show oneself in a more positive light than would otherwise be the case, is quite another.

What he wrote about his "involvement" in the hunt for the Ripper is vainglorious at best and, if he were in possession of his faculties at the time (I've not heard that he wasn't), utterly indefensible.

It is insufficient Sam,to talk of Smith"s chapter on the ripper in a way which doesnt resemble that chapter or sensibly discuss what Smith actually said.There are actually several interesting observations,he makes that fit well with what others such as Prof William Fishman [ fairly recently], and the editor of the Jewish chronicle at the time, said just prior to the publication of Smith"s memoirs that suggest he at least was very well aware of the widespread prejudice about Jews that existed-whether it was from Anderson in his Blackwood magazine articles,published prior to his 1910 autobiography or the locals beginning to give Jews grief after Hanbury Street.Smith speaks thoughtfully about these matters and his stand on these prejudices was admirable.
Nothing is served by the kind of sweeping generalisations you make about Smith.He took a strong and very critical stand against Warren giving orders to erase the graffiti,which he believed could have been photographed before being erased and which he,presumably,as "acting" City Commissioner of Police didnt have the power to prevent.-It might have been a different story if it had happened when he later became Chief Commissioner [ City of London]-but not when he was standing in for someone on holiday.There is a lot more that can be gleaned from his autobiography too.For example I got from the library a huge, almost day by day biography of William Morris a little while ago and in it I found an account of how the City Police and Met Police were so involved having fisticuffs with each other at the boundary of the City that the huge demonstration leading from Whitechapel to Trafalgar Square was able to circumvent the fracas and reach their destination without any difficulty.Now I may be wrong in my interpretation of Don Rumbelow over this kind of mutual hostility,but I believe he criticises Henry Smith over him quoting just such an event.The point is that the William Morris book appeared to be proving Smith right----William Morris was actually on the demonstration at the beginning.
So its little things like that that show Smith not to have been simply a braggard and to sweep him away on the basis of his boasting and conceit seems to me to be ridiculous.
Best
Norma

[Sam Flynn]

like i said, all autobiographical works suffer from bias, and only tell what the author wants us to know

...that's letting Smith off far too lightly, in my view, but perhaps you're not as sensitive as I am to these sorts of things, Joel. I was brought up on a diet of Erich von Dæniken, and boy did it smart when, at the tender age of 12, I discovered what a ride he'd taken me - and millions of others - for

[Cap'n Jack]

The sort of thrust to a Jewish subject in most of the police memoirs is I think an arrow into the heart of what we discuss, wide off target but aimed nonetheless.
Are not every single senior police officer concerned in the case guilty of the charge that the 'Juwes will not be blamed for nothing'?
Meanwhile they let good English boys off with light sentencing for ripping an 'unfortunate's' throat, simply because they were all obsessed with the idea of a mad Jew.
Lipski was shafted by the police for the same reason.

[joelhall]

Joel - the issue with Smith isn't so much one of mistakes or foggy memory, but his barefaced cheek in saying "I did this" and "I did that", when we know full well that it wasn't he who did them. Bias is one thing, but passing other people's deed off as one's own, or fabricating events to show oneself in a more positive light than would otherwise be the case, is quite another.

What he wrote about his "involvement" in the hunt for the Ripper is vainglorious at best and, if he were in possession of his faculties at the time (I've not heard that he wasn't), utterly indefensible.

like i said, all autobiographical works suffer from bias, and only tell what the author wants us to know regardless of whether its some actor whining about their poor background in beverly hills ( ) or an ex-copper trying to delude us he was more important to famous cases than he was.

no man likes to leave a poor legacy behind.

joel