Robert Sagar

[Chris]

Here's an odd item from the Times of 3 April 1889. It probably means nothing, but it sounds as though Pentin knew where to find Sagar within easy reach of the south end of Duke Street, Aldgate, that evening.

[Chris]

Here is the relevant bit of Harcourt's speech as originally printed, from Bob Clarke's From Grub Street to Fleet Street (2004):

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7JUvRTXLvTgC

[mariab]

I don't know if there is anything in it, but I keep thinking of how both Harvey and Long were sacked in July 1889. Two PCs involved in the Mitre Sq investigation are both sacked at the same time (albeit a few months later). It's something that bugs me.

Any minute now someone will come up with a comment on “the sweet smell of conspiracy“, but I find Robert's consideration fascinating.

He said he had been told about it by a man named Marriott, employed at the Times office. Marriott in turn was questioned, but denied having told Brooker anything of the sort. The enquiry was still proceeding, and the solicitor was considering whether there was sufficient evidence to institute proceedings against three men who were suspected - Marriott, Todd and [?]Double.

I can't help but think that we might be dealing with an ancestor of Mr. Trevor Mariott's of the SB here. (With apologies for the irreverent comment.)

[Chris]

The Harcourt Interpolation

There are quite a few references to Robert Sagar in the surviving City of London CID records at the LMA, mostly from the early 1880s. They are mostly fairly routine, but one investigation he was involved in was rather unusual. The records relating to it are in the envelope numbered CLA/048/AD/11/8.

According to a memorandum by James McWilliam dated 2 February 1992, DS Randall had called on Mr Soames, solicitor [for the Times] the day before and had been told that he wished the police to try to detect the person "who caused the publication of an obscene and fictitious line in the speech of Sir Wm. Harcourt [the Home Secretary], which appeared in the Times of the 22nd [23rd] Ultimo." The Times authorities had already investigated the matter and suspected a compositor named Dalton, but had insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution. A boy employed at the Standard office was supposed to know something about it, as he had told someone at 1am that there was going to be a row over something that would appear in the Times that day.

The memorandum concludes:
"Plain Clothes Patrols Davidson and Sagar have been instructed to mix with the compositors when they go out for refreshment at night, and in the morning with a view to glean something from their conversation."

According to a further report dated 8 February, the hapless youth (named Brooker) from the Standard was interrogated, and after an initial attempt at denial, he admitted that he had known about the matter. He said he had been told about it by a man named Marriott, employed at the Times office. Marriott in turn was questioned, but denied having told Brooker anything of the sort. The enquiry was still proceeding, and the solicitor was considering whether there was sufficient evidence to institute proceedings against three men who were suspected - Marriott, Todd and [?]Double.

There is also a letter from one Alfred Pegler of Southampton, enquiring whether there is a compositor named Pond in the employ of the Times, and if so whether he is a native of Southampton. The writer hopes to throw light upon the "foul word that was allowed to pass in the paper last week."

What was this all about? After a fruitless search through Harcourt's speech for the offending word, I was surprised to find that the "Harcourt Interpolation," as "a minor scandal of Victorian London," has its own Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harcourt_interpolation

According to Wikipedia, the following words were put into Sir William Harcourt's mouth by the miscreant:
I saw in a Tory journal the other day a note of alarm, in which they said “Why, if a tenant-farmer is elected for the North Riding of Yorkshire the farmers will be a political power who will have to be reckoned with”. The speaker then said he felt inclined for a bit of fucking. I think that is very likely. (Laughter). But I think it is rather an extraordinary thing that the Tory party have not found that out before.

When the outrage was pointed out, the Times published an apology, and in fact reprinted a corrected version of the 23 January edition, in which Harcourt's words were restored as:


Wikipedia adds that a similar outrage took place on 12 June the same year in relation to an advertisement for a book entitled Everyday Life in Our Public Schools, and notes that subsequently "it was a rule on the paper that any compositor who was sacked left immediately with a payoff and did not work out a period of notice."

[Robert]

I don't know if there is anything in it, but I keep thinking of how both Harvey and Long were sacked in July 1889. Two PCs involved in the Mitre Sq investigation are both sacked at the same time (albeit a few months later). It's something that bugs me.

[Monty]

Hey Rob,

Perjury would have been a huge issue is securing a conviction, assuming Jack was sane enough to stand trial.

I see no reason why should information would have been witheld.

Smith and Lewande to name but two were called to inquest and gave written testimony.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

He must have been on Duke Street for at least 4 or 5 minutes in total. And I think almost anywhere along that stretch he would have been able to see (or hear footsteps) of a man crossing Duke street at Stoney Lane.

Hello Rob, Chris,

Just as a sidenote and a hunch from my side here..and perhaps this too is involved in this somewhere, our friend Morris heard nothing coming from Mitre Square either. Now that is in a surrounded built up and enclosed, small area where footsteps could be heard in the dead of the night. Indeed, Morris testified that he heard the PC every night on his beat, yet heard no footsteps of two other people (the killer and the victim), who presumably walked through the square itself. That in itself is odd.

Now the reason I say this, is in connection with your posting (in it's entirety) and again the problem of what had already been given as a statement by all parties. Re. perjury. So I ask, in all innocence, if the entire episode of witness/police testimony connected to the Mitre Square murder does indeed have the same surround attached to it. Is there a common link there? I do not know, but like you, see Chris' thoughts as possibly plausible. And yours too, Rob, by the way.

best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

Yes, those are both very good points. It is however certainly odd to me to think that Harvey would not have seen anyone. I remember Sugden speculated that the Ripper may have been actually in the square at the time Harvey looked into it. This fits with the timing of course, but it also seems possible that the Ripper exited the square when Harvey was not in Church passage. He must have been on Duke Street for at least 4 or 5 minutes in total. And I think almost anywhere along that stretch he would have been able to see (or hear footsteps) of a man crossing Duke street at Stoney Lane. But as you say, it would have showed up in Swanson's report.

The only other possibility is that the Police went to extraordinary lengths to keep it out of the papers, even to the extent of not including it in Swanson's report. The police did after all go to quite extraordinary lengths to prevent riots against the Jews, the erasing of the graffito being the prime example. I don't see perjury being so much of a problem, necessarily, if they really wanted to keep information from the press and public.

But again, your points are entirely valid, and are probably correct. It is just that there are so many references to this elusive City PC who caught a glimpse of the Ripper that it is hard for me to accept that there is no truth to it. But again, my hunch is probably wrong.

RH

[Chris]

Perhaps a more likely scenario is that Harvey was somewhere along Duke Street when he heard footsteps and looked to see a man crossing the street and continuing down Stoney Lane. If Harvey was not very close to Stoney Lane, he is not likely to have got a good look at this person at all. For example, Harvey may have been as far away as Church Passage, or even further. In such a scenario, his "sighting" would have been worthless in the sense of identifying the suspect, and the fact that he was Jewish in appearance may have been withheld simply because of fears it would inflame anti-Semitism. In short, his "sighting" may have been left out of the inquest altogether.

I think the problem with this idea is that it wouldn't just have been left out of his evidence, but he would have perjured himself to conceal it, as he's reported as testifying that "He saw no suspicious person about while on his beat." And if the police had attached enough importance to such a sighting to suppress it in this way, wouldn't it have been mentioned in the internal police documents such as Swanson's report?

[robhouse]

I do agree that it seems entirely possible that the Coles PC Thompson story somehow got mixed up here with Sagar's tale of retreating footsteps. It is, however, oddly specific with the mention of King's block. I guess I am leaning toward two possibilities:

1. Sagar confused and combined several memories: PC Thompson's hearing footsteps at the Coles murder, a witness (of the Mitre Sq. murder) identifying a Jewish suspect, and a City PC (Harvey) just missing the Ripper at Mitre Square. This possibility is interesting, since Sagar apparently thought the suspect in any case was Jewish, and said "I feel sure we knew the man, but we could prove nothing. Eventually we got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum, and the series of murders came to an end."

2. The other possibility is that there was a sighting of a man leaving Mitre Square by a City PC, probably Harvey. The more I think about it, the more this seems like a real possibility to me. Harvey had a long stretch of his beat down Bevis Marks/Duke Street, and if the Ripper had left the square via St James Place, he would probably have seen him. The only time he would have missed him (given the timing) was the brief time he was in Church Passage. It has been suggested that the Ripper may have actually been in Mitre Square when Harvey looked into it. Perhaps a more likely scenario is that Harvey was somewhere along Duke Street when he heard footsteps and looked to see a man crossing the street and continuing down Stoney Lane. If Harvey was not very close to Stoney Lane, he is not likely to have got a good look at this person at all. For example, Harvey may have been as far away as Church Passage, or even further. In such a scenario, his "sighting" would have been worthless in the sense of identifying the suspect, and the fact that he was Jewish in appearance may have been withheld simply because of fears it would inflame anti-Semitism. In short, his "sighting" may have been left out of the inquest altogether.

Just throwing some ideas out there.

RH

[lynn cates]

very nice

Hello Chris. Very nice. This is an excellent find. Sagar is a really interesting character.

(Forgive my late response but one of my positions has annoyingly kept me unduly occupied of late.)

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Many thanks to Chris Phillips for the Old Bailey link to George Johnson's forgery case. From the newspaper report posted here by Chris it appears that the Barmash gang was also active/arrested in the same time frame, around 1890? Does anyone know details about the Barmash gang's activities with forgery? Did they operate mainly in London? (I did a casebook search for them with no results. I'll look them up in the Old Bailey and the newspapers in a couple weeks, when less busy.)

[Chris]

The name George Johnson rings a bell and I think he was an accomplice of Charles Le Grand in a bank forgery case. I intended to check my notes on this last night and forgot.

I don't know whether there was any connection with Le Grand, but this was a forgery case in 1890. It's mentioned in several of these articles on Sagar, and also in Cox's memoirs. Both Sagar (as 'Sager') and Cox gave evidence at the trial:

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18901124-38&div=t18901124-38

[Chris]

Well, I for one think it is surprising that no one has yet commented on this new find... so I might as well be the first. I assume, Chris, that you are concluding that this article is the "memoirs" mentioned in the Atholl article. This seems very reasonable to me. I think I had been assuming that Sagar wrote something along the lines of a book-length memoir that had gone unpublished. Correct me if I am wrong, but this was, I believe, the general assumption, correct?

I think that's been one assumption, though people have also done quite a lot of searching for some published memoirs along the lines of Harry Cox's - mainly in weekly newspapers, I think.

I've thought for some time that Atholl must have been quoting something that had appeared in one newspaper or another. Given the two similar reports that have been found in online newspaper archives in the last few months (one of which has yet to be traced to an English source) I thought it would be worth checking all the London daily papers for a week or so after Sagar's retirement.

Obviously this has a lot in common with the other reports that appeared around the same time. To my mind they seem too similar to be completely independent, but too different to have simply been copied from one another. What I've been wondering is whether some journalists were invited to a retirement party, and compiled these reports on the basis of what was said there about Sagar's career. Perhaps this is what the Daily News report was referring to when it said "Last Wednesday he bade farewell to his colleagues," as Sagar officially retired on Thursday 5 January. I think this would be consistent with the repeated references in the reports to Sagar's personal popularity, and particularly the conclusion of the City Press report ("Into his retirement he carries with him the good wishes of all who enjoy his friendship ...").

I think the police constable's encounter with the Jewish man near Mitre Square is the most interesting new detail to emerge from these reports. The explanation is anyone's guess but, as I said above, the mention of the "retreating footsteps" suggests to me that the stories about Ernest Thompson's discovery of the body of Frances Coles are somehow related:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=162295&postcount=53

One other point. I suspect that, despite the different location, there is another echo of the same story in the claim of a "well-known Scotland Yard detective" reported by the Sunday Chronicle later the same year:
"His description agreed with that of a man seen in Dorset-street, Whitechapel, on the night when Mary Jane Kelly was cut to pieces, and at that time he was very near to actual arrest by a policeman."

[The Good Michael]

Wow! A very important piece here is Sagar's mis-remembering of the graffiti, but his remembering of what he thought the intent of it was; that it seemed to be the writing of a Jew saying not to blame them for what happened. That interpretation is the exact reason the graffiti was removed, despite the actual words.

Cheers,

Mike