Major Smith & the Blood-Stained Water

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In his book "From Constable to Commissioner", Major Sir Henry Smith gives the impression that, after murdering Eddowes, the "Ripper" washed his hands in a sink in Dorset Street.

"The assassin had evidently wiped his hands with the piece of apron. In Dorset Street, with extraordinary audacity, he washed them at a sink up a close, not more than six yards from the street. I arrived there in time to see the blood-stained water. I wandered round my station houses, hoping I might find someone brought in, and finally got to bed at 6 a.m., after a very harassing night, completely defeated . . ."

But a few paragraphs later this mysterious scenario was explained.

Major Smith had apparently conflated events from the Eddowes and Kelly murders—

"On three occasions—the only three of which I can give reliable details—there was no need to provide the murderer with hot water and Sunlight soap. In Berners Street he did not mutilate the woman, and probably had very few blood-stains about him; in Mitre Square he used the woman's apron; and in Dorset Street he carefully washed his hands at the sink."

Quite how Major Smith arrived in time after the Kelly murder to see blood-stained water is anyone's guess.

Regards,

Simon

[Tecs]

Hi Simon.

Out of interest did my post about smith and the bloodstained
Water on another thread earlier today prompt your thoughts
On this? It would be great to take credit for anything!

As for smith i've always felt that he has been maligned unfairly in recent years
For reasons i've put on other threads.

Regards,

[lynn cates]

route

Hello Simon. Interesting explanation. I ache to trace a route from Berner to Mitre to Goulston and then to Dorset.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi All,

In his book "From Constable to Commissioner", Major Sir Henry Smith gives the impression that, after murdering Eddowes, the "Ripper" washed his hands in a sink in Dorset Street.

"The assassin had evidently wiped his hands with the piece of apron. In Dorset Street, with extraordinary audacity, he washed them at a sink up a close, not more than six yards from the street. I arrived there in time to see the blood-stained water. I wandered round my station houses, hoping I might find someone brought in, and finally got to bed at 6 a.m., after a very harassing night, completely defeated . . ."

But a few paragraphs later this mysterious scenario was explained.

Major Smith had apparently conflated events from the Eddowes and Kelly murders—

"On three occasions—the only three of which I can give reliable details—there was no need to provide the murderer with hot water and Sunlight soap. In Berners Street he did not mutilate the woman, and probably had very few blood-stains about him; in Mitre Square he used the woman's apron; and in Dorset Street he carefully washed his hands at the sink."

Quite how Major Smith arrived in time after the Kelly murder to see blood-stained water is anyone's guess.

Regards,

Simon

Wandering round from some time after noon til 6 in the morning? "Finally got to bed" suggests he was doing a lot of wandering.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tecs,

Award yourself a badge of merit.

You prompted me to post something I'd written a while back.

Major Smith's memory may most charitably be described as unreliable.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

I don't know what to make of this. Smith seems terminally confused.

Simon, are you suggesting that he should rather have written something like this :

"The assassin had evidently wiped his hands with the piece of apron. (In Dorset Street, with extraordinary audacity, he was to wash them at a sink up a close, not more than six yards from the street. I arrived there in time to see the blood-stained water). I wandered round my station houses, hoping I might find someone brought in, and finally got to bed at 6 a.m., after a very harassing night, completely defeated . . ."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

I agree with you. Smith gets terminally confused within the space of a dozen paragraphs.

But like so many other cops who wrote "Ripper" reminiscences and anecdotes, Smith seems compelled to put himself at the epicentre of events.

"Dammit! If only I'd been two minutes earlier I'd have caught the blackguard red-handed."

How many times have you read something along those lines?

I guess it helped dress up otherwise fairly pedestrian narratives.

Regards,

Simon

[Tecs]

Hi Tecs,

Award yourself a badge of merit.

You prompted me to post something I'd written a while back.

Major Smith's memory may most charitably be described as unreliable.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Thank you.

A badge of merit from you is probably the best award I will get all year, so I will wear it with pride!

it's already been mentioned above but it is possible that Smith did drop the Dorset street reference in to the discussion about the Mitre Square murder just to add a contrast with how the Ripper cleaned his hands. ie the paragraph is all about Mitre Square including how JTR wiped his hands with the piece of apron, with a sentence about how he cleaned his hands in the Dorset St murder dropped in. Different punctuation may have made that clearer perhaps?

Overall though, I am intrigued into how Smith has been turned 180 degrees over the last 25 years. Martin Fido says that when he started investigating the case he, along with most other Ripperologists believed that Smith was the man who knew more about the case than anyone else, based mostly on Smith saying so himself. When he investigated the primary material, he was amazed to find that Smith was a boaster "whose words could be shown to be fiction time and again." Anderson, Fido discovered, was actually a man of "rigid integrity" and much more likely to be telling the truth.

Now, this is interesting because it's my belief that no-one has done more to demote Smith and promote Anderson than Martin. If you watch the 1973 Barlow and Watt programme, they call Anderson a fool for what he wrote and believe that Smith was much more sensible and down to earth. And yet today, it is the other way round.

I would never accuse anybody of anything, but it is fair to say that Martin's theory does depend a lot on boosting Anderson and his credibilty and therefore, as he (Anderson) and Smith had a spat over Anderson's claims in print, lowering Smith's credibility wouldn't be a bad thing either. But I think it is an exaggeration to say that Smith could be shown to be lying again and again and I would put it to people that although yes, Smith's memoirs are more colourful, is there anything that he wrote which is absolutely, positively a downright lie? His account of the Kidney is not 100% accurate agreed but the main points are there and overall, I really do think that Smith never wrote anything completely untrue. And if he did, then how should we judge the writers who have incorrectly said that Smith said that he saw the blood stained water "gurgling" down the sink? As I have said in several other posts, Smith never, ever used the word gurgling. So should we say that all of those subsequent writers are liars for putting words in Smith's mouth? A degree of artistic licence in memoirs intended to sell and make money is perhaps to be expected?

Maybe I'm wrong but at the end of the day, who would you rather believe. A police officer who was absent from London for most of the murders, yet by looking at some pocket books and knowing about an identity parade says that he knows who the killer is, but he's not telling. Or a police officer champing at the bit to get involved, who would have loved to catch the killer but who admitted that the Ripper had completely beaten him?

Regards,

[Phil H]

Maybe I'm wrong but at the end of the day, who would you rather believe. A police officer who was absent from London for most of the murders, yet by looking at some pocket books and knowing about an identity parade says that he knows who the killer is, but he's not telling. Or a police officer champing at the bit to get involved, who would have loved to catch the killer but who admitted that the Ripper had completely beaten him?

I think I'd see that differently Tecs.

I don't think we need a beauty contest between two men, denigrating one and exalting the other. Both may have things to tell us, and our judgement may differ on issues or occasions.

Anderson's absence from London was either a medical requirement or (just possibly) partly an cover for his "secret" work (the stop in Paris might suggest that). Either way, when he left the Ripper scare was only starting and there was no reason to believe that his presence would be particularly important at that stage. If he had ignored medical advice and collapsed half-way through the inquiry, would that have been preferable. If his trip was partly intelligence related, then maybe that had prioority on the day he left.

Relying on notebooks may seem odd and detached, but remember, Warren -in appointing Swanson as co-ordinator - regarded this as an intellectual exercise. He wrote something like, I could resolve this myself in a couple of days if I had the time.

But more than that, Anderson was surely not a feet on the ground investigator, any more than Swanson was. He was a senior administrator. Swanson's job, in part, was it not, to write the summaries that senior staff could read. DSS synthesised the bulk of material, providead precis of complex reports? Even if Anderson was in Switzerland, Abberline was on the ground, the case was still being directed.

On balance, I actually might rate more highly the more detached thinker over the senior man who wants to get his hands dirty. Rushing around the East End is not actually what top cops are paid to do. Any more than, except in extremis, a general does his job best while serving as a private in the front line - they are supposed to be thinking strategically (or at least tactically) not getting dirty and killed. Look at their responsibilities and then say who uses their time best is my standpoint.

But evaluating sources is often a matter of opinion. I tend to agree with Martin Fido, but respect your judgment on Smith - it is perhaps time he was looked at again. Incidentally, what do Evans and Rumbelow say? - I must look.

Cordially,
Phil H

[Tecs]

Maybe I'm wrong but at the end of the day, who would you rather believe. A police officer who was absent from London for most of the murders, yet by looking at some pocket books and knowing about an identity parade says that he knows who the killer is, but he's not telling. Or a police officer champing at the bit to get involved, who would have loved to catch the killer but who admitted that the Ripper had completely beaten him?

I think I'd see that differently Tecs.

I don't think we need a beauty contest between two men, denigrating one and exalting the other. Both may have things to tell us, and our judgement may differ on issues or occasions.

Anderson's absence from London was either a medical requirement or (just possibly) partly an cover for his "secret" work (the stop in Paris might suggest that). Either way, when he left the Ripper scare was only starting and there was no reason to believe that his presence would be particularly important at that stage. If he had ignored medical advice and collapsed half-way through the inquiry, would that have been preferable. If his trip was partly intelligence related, then maybe that had prioority on the day he left.

Relying on notebooks may seem odd and detached, but remember, Warren -in appointing Swanson as co-ordinator - regarded this as an intellectual exercise. He wrote something like, I could resolve this myself in a couple of days if I had the time.

But more than that, Anderson was surely not a feet on the ground investigator, any more than Swanson was. He was a senior administrator. Swanson's job, in part, was it not, to write the summaries that senior staff could read. DSS synthesised the bulk of material, providead precis of complex reports? Even if Anderson was in Switzerland, Abberline was on the ground, the case was still being directed.

On balance, I actually might rate more highly the more detached thinker over the senior man who wants to get his hands dirty. Rushing around the East End is not actually what top cops are paid to do. Any more than, except in extremis, a general does his job best while serving as a private in the front line - they are supposed to be thinking strategically (or at least tactically) not getting dirty and killed. Look at their responsibilities and then say who uses their time best is my standpoint.

But evaluating sources is often a matter of opinion. I tend to agree with Martin Fido, but respect your judgment on Smith - it is perhaps time he was looked at again. Incidentally, what do Evans and Rumbelow say? - I must look.

Cordially,
Phil H

Thank you Phil, excellent post showing how you can disagree without resorting to a slanging match!

i don't know, or to honest can't be bothered to remember how to do those quotes one at a time so I'll just list responses.

1. Regarding the beauty contest you are absolutely right, but in the game of hunt the Ripper, many, many authors have fallen into this trap.

2. Anderson's absence from London is completely justified agreed. It is just a coincidence that he had an amazing ability to be absent one way or another when a murder happened! (Written without sarcasm)

3. I wouldn't say relying on notebooks was odd or detached really. There probably wasn't much else to go on.

4. Your chain of command re Anderson-DSS-Abberline is spot on and shows, at least to me, that DSS therefore Anderson must have got their info from the ground from Abberline. And he rubbished the kosminski theory later, in a roundabout way. It is inconceivable that Abb didn't know about Kosminski one way or the other and he dismissed him.

5. What you say about generals/privates and how senior managers should be detached is true and I can't disagree.

6. Finally, regarding Smith I just can't get away from the fact that for all peoples' claims that he was a liar and boaster, he had the good grace to admit that on the subject of the Ripper, he was stumped. Also, there's no doubt in my mind that he has been maligned in recent years and that could be because if you are going for some sort of Kosminski angle you need to put Smith down. Interestingly, as Abberline also opposed the kosminski theory, it is also sometimes neccessary to do him down as well and it is very interesting to see that most people who put Smith down also put Abberline down too. Martin Fido in his works says that Abberline was not really the man in charge and was just one of the inspectors on the case. There is of course some truth in that, but I think Abberline was a bit more than just one of the inspectors.

And in case anybody thinks I'm having a go at Martin, absolutely not! He's quite rightly one of the most respected ripperologists and one of my personal favourites. But, that shouldn't stop us discussing it.

regards,

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

A couple of things that strike me. In the same vein as Simon, I can see comparisons...Smith and Anderson both making claims that all others don't, for eample.

I am also reminded of Reid, who claimed that nobody was the wiser amount of years afterwards, and that if anyone would know, he would.

Abberline would ..MUST ...have known about the Polish Jew theory and name, to dismiss it so clearly. Likewise Reid.

Smith sort of falls in between the two..Anderson and Reid.

Odd isnt it..

Warren "had I the time I would have solved it" sort of comment..

Anderson "when I resumed duties I cleared up this problem or that problem..." sort of comment..

Smith "I was a few minutes away from it all" sort of comment

All Top Brass.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

Abberline would ..MUST ...have known about the Polish Jew theory and name, to dismiss it so clearly. Likewise Reid.

If the Kosminski investigation was in any way sensitive (perhaps because liaison with the City CID was outside the rules) then I could understand Abberline and reid being outside the loop.

Oh, they may have been told that someone named Kosminski had been put away - but if you were Munro, Bradford or or Anderson, would you say to senior detectives:

"Sorry boys, but on this key part of the investigation we are using outside help!" Not quite a morale booster!!

Yet we know from Cox and DSS that the City CID were involved for some reason and in close contact surrveillance.

Anderson and DSS were senior enough to have the wider perspective, may have been the puppet masters.

Abberline and Reid were not - so no surprise to me if they were less well-informed.

Phil H

[Phil Carter]

Abberline would ..MUST ...have known about the Polish Jew theory and name, to dismiss it so clearly. Likewise Reid.

If the Kosminski investigation was in any way sensitive (perhaps because liaison with the City CID was outside the rules) then I could understand Abberline and reid being outside the loop.

Oh, they may have been told that someone named Kosminski had been put away - but if you were Munro, Bradford or or Anderson, would you say to senior detectives:

"Sorry boys, but on this key part of the investigation we are using outside help!" Not quite a morale booster!!

Yet we know from Cox and DSS that the City CID were involved for some reason and in close contact surrveillance.

Anderson and DSS were senior enough to have the wider perspective, may have been the puppet masters.

Abberline and Reid were not - so no surprise to me if they were less well-informed.

Phil H

Hello Phil H,

Speculation only here, but the cutting out of the loop idea is more strengthened is it not if the sensitive issue is Special Branch related..i.e.to Fenianism or even just Irish relate involvement, or foreign radicals even. The "need to know" rule.

I'm sure you would know a lot more of that sort of process in differing catagories within hierarchy of political decision making. One wonders if the same sort of system, the unwritten word of need to know, was in place then, within the higher echelons of the Metropolitan Police Force?

Which paradoxically, brings us back to Major Smith and HIS force. Need to know?

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Where, on the truth scale, re Major Sir Henry Smith, to you rate this?

"...completely beat me and every Police officer in London." and
"...I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

"every Police Officer"?
"where he lived"

my emphasis

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

Phil C

I am at the moment working on the basis of Swanson ansd Cox both saying that City CID were involved. That in itself might make it sensitive - for the Met's internal morale reasons alone. Add to that the use of the Seaside Home and the apparent ignorance - or incomplete information available to - others within the Met, and I gain a hint of ...something...

You may be right that a Fenian angle would explain it, but Swanson does not mention SB. I remain open minded on that score.

I have certainly seen plenty of internal re-organisations carried out by small teams from within specially tasked or by outside agencies, to avoid spooking staff. Such an approach also has the benefit of other staff being able to say - I know nothing: deniability in other words.

I must consider more deeply the question of whether Smith was in the loop.

Phil H