Henry Smith, Daily Express 5th. Oct. 1910

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Herewith snippit from the Daily Express of the 5th. October 1910.

Transcription to follow.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Transcription of the above. The relevant parts are as follows:-

'He (Sir Henry Smith ed)disagrees entirely from some of the theories with regard to the identity of the Whitechapel murderer held by his old colleagues, Sir Charles Warren and Sir Robert Anderson, who were then at the head of the Metropolitan Police.
"There is no man living who knows as much of those Ripper murders as I do," writes Sir Henry Smith boldly, "and before going further I must admit that though within five minutes of the perpetrator one night and with a very fair description of him besides, he completely beat me and every police officer in London, and I have no idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

NARROW ESCAPE

"The 'Ripper' certainly had all the luck" says the ex-Commissioner bitterly. On the night of Saturday, September 29 1888, he was seen in the company of a woman at the Goulston St exit of Mitre Square, City, and shortly after killed that woman and another one who had been in Sir Henry's custody at Bishopsgate Station twenty minutes before.
The only eyewitness description of the murderer ever obtained was given to Sir Henry Smith by a German, who saw the couple together. His description of "Jack" was "A young man about the middle height with a small fair moustache, dressed in something like navy (?unreadable?) and with a deerstalker's hat- that is a cap with a peak both fore and aft.

"Since this chapter was written, my attention has been drawn to an article in "Blackwood's Magazine" of March this Year" continues Sir Henry. "It was the sixth of a (?unreadable?) by Sir Robert Anderson entitled 'The Lighter Side of My Official Life.'
"In this article Sir Robert discourses on the Whitechapel or Jack the Ripper murders, and states emphatically that the criminal 'was living in the immediate vicinity of the source of the murder, and if he was not absolutely alone his people knew of his guilt and refused to give him up to justice."
"The conclusion" Sir Robert adds, "we came to was that he and his people were low class Jews, for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile Justice, and the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point.' "

WRITING ON THE WALL

Sir Henry Smith disputes the theory of Sir Robert Anderson, and tells how a high official wiped out some writing on the wall in chalk which might have solved the mystery.
"To obliterate the words, that might have given us a most valuable clue, more especially after I had sent a man to stand over them till they were photographed." comments Sir Henry severely, "was not only indiscreet but unwarrantable." '


This article promotes Sir Henry Smith's then new autobiography.
Apart from the obvious errors surrounding the double event evening, Sir Henry claims that he knows more than anyone about the murders. Reid did the same, in effect, and so did Sir MM. Anderson has his 'def. ascertained facts' etc. Strange how they all thought they were in a position above the other.

Enjoy.

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

words

Hello Phil. Thanks for posting that.

I wonder whether the unreadable words are:

1. serge?

2. series?

Just an informed guess.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lynn,

Thank you Lynn.
Yes, my guesses too, but thought I'd let those with informed eyesight like your good self decifer..lol

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Phil. You flatter an old man who is blind as a bat.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Silhouette

"a deerstalker's hat- that is a cap with a peak both fore and aft"

In silhouette would be like this:



whereas a Metropolitan Police helmet would be like this:

and a City of London helmet (something like this -adapted from another image)


Just a thought!

Regards, Bridewell

[Phil Carter]

Hello Colin,

You naughty naughty man. You'll have Monty shaking his head at you about loyalty...haha!

Odd resemblance though, isn't it...

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Phil C

Smith has mis-remembered the hat; Lawende did not say deerstalker.

Very unusually for Macnaghten he took Smith on, though not by name even though he agreed with the latter that Anderson was dead wrong:

From his memoir chapter 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (1914):

' ... Only two or three years ago I saw a book of police reminiscences (not by a Metropolitan officer), in which the author stated that he knew more of the " Ripper murders " than any man living, and then went on to say that during the whole of August 1888 he was on the tiptoe of expectation. That writer had indeed a prophetic soul, looking to the fact that the first murder of the Whitechapel miscreant was on 31st August of that year of grace ...'

I suppose Sir Melville had to somewhat brush Smith aside because the same source knew nothing about the suicided suspect?

On the other site Wolf Vanderlinden has posted from the 1935 memoirs of Sir Basil Thomson. Thomson was Mac's successor. He expanded on his Russian medico suspect who killed himself (Druitt fused with Ostrog) into greater detail in the next edition of his memoirs a year later in 1936.

But the information by this senior policeman about the alleged trio of top suspects comes virtually word-for-word from from Major Griffiths 'Mysteries of Police and Crime' (1898).

This suggests that 1) Macnaghten was reticent about talking about the Ripper and thus never sent clarified the exact identity of the suspect who took his own life, and 2) that Thomson was unaware that in the archive was an unsent Report to the Home Office naming these suspects -- a document which did not advocate M. J. Druitt above 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog.

[Phil Carter]

Thanks Phil C

Smith has mis-remembered the hat; Lawende did not say deerstalker.

Very unusually for Macnaghten he took Smith on, though not by name even though he agreed with the latter that Anderson was dead wrong:

From his memoir chapter 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (1914):

' ... Only two or three years ago I saw a book of police reminiscences (not by a Metropolitan officer), in which the author stated that he knew more of the " Ripper murders " than any man living, and then went on to say that during the whole of August 1888 he was on the tiptoe of expectation. That writer had indeed a prophetic soul, looking to the fact that the first murder of the Whitechapel miscreant was on 31st August of that year of grace ...'

I suppose Sir Melville had to somewhat brush Smith aside because the same source knew nothing about the suicided suspect?

On the other site Wolf Vanderlinden has posted from the 1935 memoirs of Sir Basil Thomson. Thomson was Mac's successor. He expanded on his Russian medico suspect who killed himself (Druitt fused with Ostrog) into greater detail in the next edition of his memoirs a year later in 1936.

But the information by this senior policeman about the alleged trio of top suspects comes virtually word-for-word from from Major Griffiths 'Mysteries of Police and Crime' (1898).

Hello Jonathan,

Thank you for this input.

I suppose that when we boil it all down, we have ourselves the problem of what theory, or theorist, or source, or "evidence" to choose. It isn't helped by the fact that many sources give their "account" in autobiographical works either, for we do not know if the words popularity-sales have on such books. We also have to take into account a bending of the truth somewhat, in most nigh on every case, and to top the lot, mistakes as to the actual facts.

There are distinct polar opposites given to us. Smith, Griffiths, MacNagthen, Anderson, Swanson, Reid, Abberline, (Arnold's comments as well), Littlechild, as well as the blanket coverage of the newspapers, especially from the USA, where the Tumblety bandwagon rolled on. We even have a doctor involved in the crime scene commenting in later years.

Not much agreement on how many victims, not much agreement as to who killed these women, the problem of comments made during the years 1888-1896, the comments made after retirement.

Today, some believe that the documentation from Anderson/Swanson/MacNagthen shows the way. Some believer this to be a false trail. Some believe that one of more of these intrepid three be the answer, some believing Littlechild's sole letter be the answer. Some put their faith in Abberline or Reid, the men "on the ground" as it were.

And some believe that by sheer weight of numbers, so many top brass people not knowing the "truth" in itself must be false if only one or two did, there was very little uniformity. The right hand disagrees with the left hand, and all hands on deck boast they know better than anyone else.

The simple truth to all of this is that they cant ALL be right. They are either mistaken, making it up or lying. They CAN however, all be wrong. And therein lies the last problem in this conundrum. Interpreting their views is one thing, whether done historically, factually, a combination of both, or with the aid of psychological analysis either in addition to the above or alone. But to then have the possibility that NOBODY actually knew.. or that, for example, James Monro, a silent witness, knew, but said nothing....

The involvement of uniformed officers, plain clothed officers, officers brought in from other districts, even other towns and cities, even from Ireland, the involvement of Special Branch in a seething pot of possible anarchy from Europeans settling in Whitechapel, the Fenian problem nicely settling with a core of radicals grouped there, and a very, very nervous public stirred up by newspapermen trying to outsell one another, stirring the pot to fever pitch helped little. Then we have the police response from on high, with very questionable decisions made at crucial times, some even decidely strange. Lack of reaction, over-reaction and the not unheard of protection of policemen and their decisions taken make this all even worse.

Separating the wheat from the chaff here is impossible without source material that has gone missing, stolen, purloined, burnt, destroyed or mislaid from TWO different sources, Home Office and Police files makes the job even more of an impossibility.

On top of all of this we have the problems of have many women were actually killed by one killer. There is disagreement as to whether the canonical five should be 5 or 4..or three...or a couple of two's or a 6 even a 7... the police themselves disagree on this point as well. Then we have the experts. Previous "experts" making up stories to sell their books, involving the cruel fact that money ran the show..sell books. The problem as to the source material comes into play when it cannot be proven or linked to official source material or known factual happenings. Then we have the introduction of the missing material being used to back up theory.. which in itself is impossible because we dont know exactly what is missing. Then we have the use of the media to carry on the game, pulling out expert after expert for opinion on something that without new source material, cannot be solved.

It's a nightmare. It's a challenge. Personalities clash. Order is restored a while then boils up again. People come and people go. And still, without new source material so desperately needed, we get nowhere fast. Then we have the ego problem.

There have been appeals sent out for anyone within Ripperology or connected to people who were in the genre to turn in any material for the good of the public interest. There have been attempts legally and proffessionally to see material that remains closed to the public. It is a never ending battle to seek further information.

Some believe the answer is easy and straight forward, some believe it to be complicated.

From my point of view.. and having just written the last 25 mins.. it DOES look complicated, and it isn't straight forward. And if there are hidden agendas and lies mixed up in all of this, then it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Human nature tells me much of the nature of this beast.

For what it is worth.

best wishes

Phil

[PC Roadnight]

In silhouette would be like this:

[ATTACH]14207[/ATTACH]

whereas a Metropolitan Police helmet would be like this:
[ATTACH]14208[/ATTACH]
and a City of London helmet (something like this -adapted from another image)
[ATTACH]14209[/ATTACH]

Just a thought!

Regards, Bridewell

I'm not quite sure if you are suggesting that a Met or City helmet could be
confused with a 'deerstalker', but if so I doubt they could be.

If your images were resized to bring the heads into comparable size I think it would be clearer that the Helmets are much taller than the close fitting cap.

The Met helmets, although they didn't have the 'cockscomb' of the City Police, were virtually identical to the Victorian British Army Home Service helmets. Your Met image is I think of a modern (post 1968) helmet which is also shorter than the earlier helmets. I know, I wore one for long enough!

Peter

[Jonathan H]

To Phil C

In fairness to the senior officers, Anderson began disseminating his 'locked-up lunatic' opinion from 1895.

Macnaghten did the same, albeit anonymously, from 1898 -- fifteen years before he retired. He was propagating against Anderson's Jewish suspect -- eg. much less likely -- and for his own: the English professional. He confirmed this as his own opinion, broadly, in 1913 and 1914.

My way out of the 'nightmare', for what it's worth, is to theorize that Macnaghten was acting independently from the other police because his preferred suspect, whom he was certain as you could be was the fiend, was found entirely posthumously and along a class-partisan grapevine, not conventional detective work.

That's why Mac knows and the rest don't know (Abberline claims to know but everything he says about the drowned suspect is wrong; while Littlechild also claims to know the real suicided doctor suspect, and that's wrong too) because he did not tell them.

If you measure that theory, Phil, against all the other sources they arguably now all fit.

[Bridewell]

I'm not quite sure if you are suggesting that a Met or City helmet could be
confused with a 'deerstalker', but if so I doubt they could be.

If your images were resized to bring the heads into comparable size I think it would be clearer that the Helmets are much taller than the close fitting cap.

The Met helmets, although they didn't have the 'cockscomb' of the City Police, were virtually identical to the Victorian British Army Home Service helmets. Your Met image is I think of a modern (post 1968) helmet which is also shorter than the earlier helmets. I know, I wore one for long enough!

Peter

Hi Peter,

The post was tongue-in-cheek and you're right, the Met helmet is a later issue. The two would only bear even a passing resemblance if seen in silhouette. It was the reference to 'blue serge' 'a cap with a peak fore and aft' which prompted the mischief.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PC Roadnight]

Hmmmmn.....Sorry Bridewell, obviously that police sense of humour by-pass is still affecting me...........................

[Cogidubnus]

But clearly not Bridewell who's also ex job!

Dave

[PC Roadnight]

Hope for me yet then!