Was there a culture of exaggeration among London coppers around 1900?

[Phil H]

Despite quite a lot of digging and reading into the archive of past threads, I haven't found this question asked.

Did London policemen (and I include in that Met and City) create a culture of exaggerating their personal roles in the years following the Whitechapel murders? I think there is some evidence to suppose they did.

Anyone who has worked in an organisation will know from experience that each one evolves its own approaches and norms - they might involve clothing (dressing-up or down); a relaxed or formal atmosphere; first names being used; long hours or flexible working etc.

Looking at some of the reports apparently emerging from coppers at all levels in the years after 1888, we find vague accounts (unspecific about time and place) which seem to imply - "I nearly caught Jack but!".

Three examples, all I think well known:

* PC Spicer and the whore with the doctor on the dustbins - that was certainly around before the 1930s (I have it reported in a book looking back over the life of George V published in 1935) and might be MUCH earlier.

* Henry Smith and the sink with bloody water said to be near Dorset Street - it was still swirling down the plug-hole.

* Sgt Stephen White's story about a moustached, quietly spoken man passing him seconds beofre a murder is discovered.

There seems to be a pattern here of possible real incidents, emroidered and elaborated until they are believed as fact.

Then we have the senior officers with their ideas about whodunnit, but no agreement. Leaving aside (for the sake of this discussion) any political motives they might have had, I see two camps:

A) Anderson and Swanson - Kosminski was the suspact. Anderson - he should have been caught etc.

B) Macnaghten and those he told about his three suspects: Kosminski (again) but also Druitt and Ostrog, with Macnaghten himself favouring MJD.

We might then add in Munro's reported "hot potato" remarks; Littlechild and Tumblety, and Abberlines comments on the theories of others.

So, my question is, in reading what is written, reported or inferred about the views of both junior and senior officials and policemen in the years after 1888, should we be scrutinising what they say even more rigourously and perhaps taking it with a pinch of salt.

If other have additional examples of possible exaggeration, I'd be interested to hear from you.

Phil

[Chris]

* PC Spicer and the whore with the doctor on the dustbins - that was certainly around before the 1930s (I have it reported in a book looking back over the life of George V published in 1935) and might be MUCH earlier.

I don't quite follow that. What's the evidence that it was around before the 1930s?

[Adam Went]

It's a difficult question to answer because we can't really tell for ourselves what each of these police officers were like in real life, and whether or not they were prone to slightly "embellishing" their stories for the benefit of associates and readers.

I've got no doubt that many of them had genuine suspicion for the suspects that they named, though some of them writing their memoirs 30,40,50 years later invariably got their facts wrong, their memories had faded, multiple cases had been woven into one, and so on.

Of course, when these memoirs were written, there was a lot of people still alive who could remember the Ripper murders well, and having a high-ranking police officer come out with their own theory on who the killer was would be sure to gain interest and sell books. This might have played a part in it (it still does to this day), but that's the cynical view and I do believe that most of them genuinely had their own theories which they developed over the years and decades after the murders and expressed when they finally decided to give interviews or write memoirs.

If they were exaggerated, which some no doubt were, it was probably more to do with fading, romanticising memory than a deliberate attempt at stretching the truth.....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Phil H]

I don't quite follow that. What's the evidence that it was around before the 1930s?

Chris, a good point.

Checking the Spicer entry in the A-Z, I see the story is credited to a Daily Express article in 1931 (not inconsistent with my date).

But I'd still suggest that it shows ex-policemen were creating "fantasies" or embroidering real events into something more significant.

Phil