Lusk Letter sent to George Lusk of the vigilante committee

[Sam Flynn]

this perhaps is the case, though with relying for a significant part on memory, which maybe clouded in some small way by rumour (as noone is really immune from susceptibility) its hardly surprising that theres mistakes in the details.

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.

[joelhall]

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

this perhaps is the case, though with relying for a significant part on memory, which maybe clouded in some small way by rumour (as noone is really immune from susceptibility) its hardly surprising that theres mistakes in the details.

im with you on this though, i dont think memoirs are a great source of evidence, as they only say what someone wants you to know, and omit those facts which they would rather kept to a select few.

all autobiographical works are written from bias.

[Sam Flynn]

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

Not a problem, AP - I enjoy a bit of banter. Helps keep one on one's toes.

' 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?

Well, the others certainly have their moments of pomposity and error, although it strikes me that Smith's chapter on the Ripper is even more dreck-ridden than most.

[Cap'n Jack]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

in fairness, memoirs, particularly of those who held positions in authority overseeing many events, changes and political decisions at any level, often contain errors, which although striking in one context are but minimal to the facts as a whole work.

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

[Dan Norder]

Henry Smith has been given a bad name largely because of his love of hyperbole.But if you can brace yourself to get past that irritating trait ,he is certainly no more unreliable than Anderson or Machnaghten ,

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

Regarding Paul Begg, isnt it best that you yourself read precisely what he states in his book and quote the actual bits you disagree with?The piece is quite lengthy and well backed up.[pages214-215 +footnotes].I am beginning to feel uncomfortable about these responses from yourself and Sam when neither of you seem to be referring to the same source I am quoting.

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.

[joelhall]

in fairness, memoirs, particularly of those who held positions in authority overseeing many events, changes and political decisions at any level, often contain errors, which although striking in one context are but minimal to the facts as a whole work.

joel

[Sam Flynn]

OK Sam,I see where you are coming from.However I do think that because Smith talked about the bloody plughole in Dorset Street,all those with a vested interest in a particular suspect jumped on the band wagan to discredit every word he ever uttered.

Well, there is that stuff about the manager of Central News receiving the kidney and jocular letter, taking it at once to Maj Smith; the content of the letter not being fit for publication, when all the papers at the time saw fit to do so; the mention of Sutton, but not of Reed or Openshaw; not even poor George Lusk seems to have been on Smith's radar, when he (as we all know) was the real recipient of the package in the first place.

Talk about bare-faced effrontery! I can only imagine that Smith dined out rather well on the back of his Munchausenine escapades, and gurgled a few complementaries down his own plughole in the process, no doubt.

G'night, Nats, AP, all...

[Natalie Severn]

I can't help being "jocular" myself, Nats - it's in my nature. If humility and truthfulness weren't foremost in Smith's mind when he wrote his memoirs, I don't see why I should defend him.

OK Sam,I see where you are coming from.However I do think that because Smith talked about the bloody plughole in Dorset Street,all those with a vested interest in a particular suspect jumped on the band wagan to discredit every word he ever uttered.They were probably" all liars and errant knaves"-so best take Hamlet"s advice and believe none of them-----or better take what "sounds likely" and leave the rest!
Night
Nats

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,if you read the post above you will see why I disagree with your response.If you disagree,why not quote the specific words written that you disagree with?Stick to that rather than glossing over it jokingly-which isnt really helpful.

I can't help being "jocular" myself, Nats - it's in my nature. If humility and truthfulness weren't foremost in Smith's mind when he wrote his memoirs, I don't see why I should defend him.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, you do not know the facts.
And it belittles this subject to pretend that you do.

I consider myself suitably chastened, AP - although I find it perplexing that one such as yourself, who rails against partakers of the "Yankee Dollar", should take sides with a man who took the King's Shilling to produce such a heap of blatantly self-aggrandizing bollocks in 1910.

[Natalie Severn]

My only quarrel - if that it be - is with the ghost of Gurgling-Plughole Smith, and those of a sufficiently humourless disposition to say they disrespect me for coining that rather catchy nickname, Nats.

Everything I wrote above about Smith's account of himself, Sutton and the kidney still stands - because it's da facts.

Hi Sam,if you read the post above you will see why I disagree with your response.If you disagree,why not quote the specific words written that you disagree with?Stick to that rather than glossing over it jokingly-which isnt really helpful.Smith,in my view,is every bit as reliable as other police chroniclers of the period ,and a lot more honest than most when it comes to dispelling the nonsense that was being spouted by other police chiefs about them pretending they knew the identity of Jack the Ripper. I often wonder if this is why such an attempt has been made to trash him in recent years----by those with a vested interest in a Druitt or a Kosminski or whoever!

[joelhall]

Sam, you do not know the facts.
And it belittles this subject to pretend that you do.

what part do you refer to cos it all seems pretty accurate from where im standing? its all on this site in black and... well, grey

joel

[Cap'n Jack]

Sam, you do not know the facts.
And it belittles this subject to pretend that you do.

[Natalie Severn]

In other words, Paul Begg made a highly speculative hypothesis about what could have happened without anything to back it up and expects it to be given serious consideration just because he came up with it. This is a particularly odd idea to believe when important parts of what Smith said about the kidney can be shown to be false by consulting far more reliable sources. In general Smith's comments are quite unreliable.

Dan,
Henry Smith has been given a bad name largely because of his love of hyperbole.But if you can brace yourself to get past that irritating trait ,he is certainly no more unreliable than Anderson or Machnaghten , and in my own view a lot MORE reliable over certain significant issues,such as whether or not the Ripper's identity was known to the police.
Regarding Paul Begg, isnt it best that you yourself read precisely what he states in his book and quote the actual bits you disagree with?The piece is quite lengthy and well backed up.[pages214-215 +footnotes].I am beginning to feel uncomfortable about these responses from yourself and Sam when neither of you seem to be referring to the same source I am quoting.
You do seem to have acquired a somewhat jaundiced view of Paul Begg's work . I find Paul to have many many excellent things to say in his book, which for me remains ,despite my own disagreements with some of his findings,one of the most outstanding contributions in the entire field.
Best
Norma