Sir Henry Smith,1888 acting City Commissioner of Police

[Natalie Severn]

Sir Henry Smith was educated at Edinburgh Academy and Edinburgh University.In 1885 he was appointed Chief Superintendent in the City of London Police Force.He was promoted to Commissioner of The City of London Police in 1890.
During the time of the Whitechapel Murders, he was acting Commissioner of City of London Police.

Smith interests me because he comes across as such a dilettante.So much so that he doesnt even seem able to take himself very seriously,let alone the tracking down of miscreants.Instead he devotes much of his autobiography to accounts of his "huntin, shootin an fishin" exploits and the dizzying round of partying he did.He even describes-again tongue in cheek, the various appointments that came his way as being due to "who he knew" rather than what he had in his CV that pointed to his suitability to his various posts.

What I like about Smith though is the way he pokes fun at himself and his colleagues in the City as well as his riotously funny accounts of the Metropolitan police locking horns with the City Police over "socialist demonstrations" when they persisted in entering the City,and the subsequent fist fights that broke out between the two police forces!

That said, there was a serious side to the City Commissioner of Police.He strongly objected to Robert Anderson"s assertion in his 6th article in Blackwoods magazine,part of Anderson"s autobiography"The Lighter Side of my Official Life".
His robust criticism of it is as follows:
"In this article Sir Robert discourses on the Whitechapel,or Jack the Ripper murders, and states emphatically that he,the criminal,"was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders,and that,if he was not living 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 one of their number to Gentile Justice,and the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point."
Sir Robert does not tell us how many of "his people" sheltered the murderer,but whether they were two dozen in number ,or two hundred,or two thousand,he accuses them of being accessories to these crimes before and after their committal.
And this City Police Commissioner , Smith continues:
Surely Sir Robert cannot believe that while the Jews,as he asserts,were entering into this conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice,there was no one among them with sufficient knowledge of the criminal law to warn them of the risks they were running.[he adds here-In murder cases, accessories after the fact,-according to "Stephen"s digest"-a legal text-and an absolutely reliable work on criminal law---are liable to penal servitude for life; and thus the Jews in the East End,against whom Sir Robert Anderson made his reckless accusation,come under that category].
Sir Robert,he says,talks of the " Lighter Side"of his "Official Life".There is nothing "light" here,says Smith,"a heavier indictment could not be "framed" against a class whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of the Metropolis.[and Smith goes on to talk of Sir Robert having still been "in Paris" on the morning of September 30th when the double event took place.He,Smith,acting City Police Commissioner,was there to be exact.He went to Mitre Square not very long after Catherine Eddowes was found dead.

His final words on The Ripper:....."He 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."

[perrymason]

....His final words on The Ripper:....."He 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."

Thats a great post Natalie, and the quote above I consider to be one of the most honest and accurate attributed to a Senior Investigator.

Cheers Nats.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Michael,
His role as the most senior Officer to represent the City Police at the time of the murders ought not to be passed over by those who would have us think that certain officers of Scotland Yard knew who the ripper was,where he had lived etc.
Catherine Eddowes was murdered in City Police territory and Smith was there at the scene that night,as was the City Police Surgeon Brown.
Given there has been so much said about a Jewish ,City Police suspect being watched 24 hours a day, the suspect, like Mr Astrakhan in the met territory,must have faded into oblivion pretty fast because Smith wrote the above in 1910 and if this Jewish suspect"s impact had been that great ,he would have referred to him,even though it was years after the event.Instead he seems to dismiss the whole idea of a Jewish suspect .
Best

[Natalie Severn]

It may be useful to compare the dates when three of the Principal Police Officers concerning the Ripper investigation had their memoirs published:

1915-Days of My Years- by Sir Melville Macnaghten,Chief Constable CID:

1910-From Constable to Commissioner by Sir Henry Smith CITY POLICE

1910-The Lighter Side of My Official Life by Sir Robert Anderson, Assistant Commissioner CID at Scotland Yard.

Of the three above named Senior Police Officials,only Sir Robert Anderson,writing in his 1910 memoirs,claimed the case was "solved" and talked of a "low class Jew/Polish Jew" was the Ripper,a man who had escaped detection by being shielded from gentile justice by his family.
Neither Macnaghten ,writing five years afterwards,or Smith writng immediately afterwards, endorsed Anderson"s claims which is a very strange situation to say the least if Anderson actually HAD known who the Ripper was.....and Smith, as stated above, actually weighed into Anderson with a blistering attack on his "Jewish concealment theory" and stated that in the twenty years that had passed since the murders they had never known "where the Ripper lived" and that the Ripper had had every policeman on the case completely beat.Very similar words to Walter Dew writing even later.

Now its true that a City Policeman named Sagar and another named Cox,did write of the Ripper"s identity being known.Sagar stated he had "been UNABLE TO BE IDENTIFIED because of being placed in a lunatic asylum and Harry Cox stated he had had curly black hair and occupied several shops in the East End ie when he wasnt in the bin -in Surrey.
The sole evidence-if it can sensibly be called such, was that although they had followed this curly headed chap very frequently and often in disguise ,the police that is, and had indeed seen him behaving very oddly "with a woman who was stood in a doorway"....... "HE WAS NEVER ARRESTED for the REASON THAT NOT THE SLIGHTEST SCRAP OF EVIDENCE COULD BE FOUND LINKING HIM TO THE CRIMES"



Well now.......sounds like Macnaghten"s "NEVER A SHRED OF EVIDENCE AGAINST ANY ONE".....


That being so,City Commissioner Smith"s words sound pretty sensible and straightforward to me.

[Chris]

Sagar stated he had "been UNABLE TO BE IDENTIFIED because of being placed in a lunatic asylum and Harry Cox stated he had had curly black hair and occupied several shops in the East End ie when he wasnt in the bin -in Surrey.
The sole evidence-if it can sensibly be called such, was that although they had followed this curly headed chap very frequently and often in disguise ,the police that is, and had indeed seen him behaving very oddly "with a woman who was stood in a doorway"....... "HE WAS NEVER ARRESTED for the REASON THAT NOT THE SLIGHTEST SCRAP OF EVIDENCE COULD BE FOUND LINKING HIM TO THE CRIMES"

Just in the interests of accuracy:

Sagar didn't actually state what you attribute to him in quotation marks (not in any source I've seen, anyway).

Quite obviously the police had some reason to suspect Cox's suspect before the surveillance started. Cox does give some hints about this, as you'll see if you read his article.

Most importantly, you're assuming that Sagar's suspect and Cox's suspect were identical. That's sheer supposition. As you've said yourself on another thread, there were many suspects, and a number of them were kept under police surveillance.

[Natalie Severn]

Cox cited this as an example of how the police checked him out,particularly when he went on "his late night walks" with a "wilder than usual look on his evil countenance" -this being when he had not been forced to spend time in the lunatic asylum.Its true this is only one example of their police surveillance-and of one suspect who could have been the ripper, but it is given as illustrative.The suspect is actually said to have walked along with one woman and then pushed her away and set off at a rapid pace.With the previous 'drunken woman he had stopped to speak to" he just stopped there for a moment or two.


And yes indeed,they probably were speaking of different suspects Sagar"s man worked in Butcher"s Row Aldgate.

Norma

[Chris]

Its true this is only one example of their police surveillance-and of one suspect who could have been the ripper, but it is given as illustrative.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out that what Cox describes wasn't the reason for their suspicions of this man. Obviously they had some reason for putting him under surveillance in the first place.

[Natalie Severn]

I'm not disputing that. I'm just pointing out that what Cox describes wasn't the reason for their suspicions of this man. Obviously they had some reason for putting him under surveillance in the first place.

I see.Well personally I believe its quite likely they put him under suspicion because of the strange behaviour that had been witnessed towards the local street walkers----and probably because the woman themselve were suspicious of his behaviour.No other reasons are put forward anywhere for suspecting him.There is no mention of any identification for example.

[Chris]

Well personally I believe its quite likely they put him under suspicion because of the strange behaviour that had been witnessed towards the local street walkers----and probably because the woman themselve were suspicious of his behaviour.

The problem is that in these discussions people often say "there was no evidence", or "the only evidence was that ...", when what they mean is "we don't know what evidence there may have been".

Speculation can be fun, but it's important to distinguish speculation and fact.

[Natalie Severn]

The problem is that in these discussions people often say "there was no evidence", or "the only evidence was that ...", when what they mean is "we don't know what evidence there may have been".

Speculation can be fun, but it's important to distinguish speculation and fact.

I take "evidence" to mean "signs of proof".Macnaghten"s statement that
"There wasnt a shred of evidence [signs of proof] about any one of them".This regarding the numbers that had fallen under suspicion and from Macnaghten in 1915-who ought,like Henry Smith, to have known.
Smith said much the same-"He had us all completely beat" and I [ Smith] never, in the whole twenty years that had passed since the murders, knew or had any idea where the Ripper lived," tells us that any "evidence" or "signs of proof" they may have had was very thin on the ground.

[Chris]

Natalie

Please don't let's start going round in semantic circles over this.

I'd hoped I'd made it clear what I was referring to - your statement about "the sole evidence" on which Cox's man was suspected. The point I'm making is that you don't know on what basis he was suspected, but obviously the initial reason predated the surveillance. Otherwise the surveillance would never have taken place!

That's it. Nothing complicated, and - I'd have hoped - nothing controversial.

[Natalie Severn]

Chris,
I have been reconsidering the content of what we have had come down to us from Cox and Sagar and I agree it is quite important when writing on them to be exact.
One of the things that surprised me about their reports on closer scrutiny, was that although both Sagar and Cox talk about their City suspects being placed in a lunatic asylum,neither suggest their suspect was Jewish-or even "foreign".
Sagar"s suspect worked in Butchers Row Aldgate,and was said by his friends to have eventually been removed to a "private" asylum.
In the case of the City suspect described by Cox,and specially written by Cox for "Thomson"s Weekly News" ,he says the man "occupied "several" shops in the East End,but from time to time he became insane,and was forced to spend of his time in a lunatic asylum in SURREY."
The report of Sagar"s suspect came from The City Press ,7th January 1905,on the occcasion of his retirement.

[Chris]

Natalie

On Cox's suspect, I'd just say that there is quite a lot in the article about the Jewish population of the street where the surveillance took place, to an extent that probably justifies the assumption that the suspect too was Jewish, in the absence of a direct statement.

On Sagar, I think it's interesting to compare the two reports we have.

One is on the occasion of his retirement, from the City Press, 7 January 1905:
It has been asserted that the murderer fled to the Continent, where he perpetrated similar hideous crimes; but that is not the case. The police realised, as also did the public, that the crimes were those of a madman, and suspicion fell upon a man, who, without a doubt, was the murderer. Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was, however, placed in a lunatic asylum, and the series of atrocities came to an end.
(A fuller extract is available on this site - http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../cp050107.html)

The other is from an article by Justin Atholl in Reynolds News twenty years after Sagar's death (15 September 1946), and purports to quote from his memoirs, which unfortunately have never been traced:
We had a good reason to suspect a man who worked in Butcher's-row, Aldgate. We watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed, there were no more Ripper atrocities.

What I find interesting is that if we didn't have the second of these, then the first would read very similarly to the claims of Anderson and Swanson - depending on how "Identification being impossible" was interpreted, of course.

As it is, there are three parts of the Atholl article that don't appear compatible with Aaron Kozminski being the suspect - the mention of Butcher's Row, the claim that the suspect was working, and the specification of a private asylum.

[Natalie Severn]

Chris,
Scott Nelson"s piece on "the Butchers Row Suspect"-which is Sagar"s suspect mentions several gentile butchers as well as a few Jewish Butchers and this ethnic composition holds true for Aldgate and Aldgate High Street generally I believe.
Not only that but the Aldgate area was being watched for Fenians too -by the sound of it-------several plain clothes police in the district of Aldgate appear to have been looking out Fenians at the time of the Double event.
There was also the Policeman who owned the "hotel over"[it was above a tailors shop, at the corner of Mitre Street and Aldgate ie Number 29 the High Street, Aldgate,and there were several "restaurants" along there as you approached St Botolphs.So there were Jews and gentiles and possibly Fenians in the area.I do take your point though.There are definite similarities of wording Will give this more thought tomorrow.

[Chris]

At the head of the thread, Natalie quoted the statement in Smith's memoirs, published in 1910:
"... before going farther 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 more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago."

That seems a clear enough admission of ignorance, but the odd thing is that there are at least two later statements by Hargrave Adam which suggest that Smith did claim to know more than this.

In Police Work From Within (1914), there is this:
"Sir Robert Anderson states confidently that he was a low-class Jew, being shielded by his fraternity. Sir Henry Smith pooh-poohs this, declaring with equal confidence that he was a Gentile."

That might just be read as a rather clumsy paraphrase of Smith's opposition to Anderson's suggestion that the murderer was Jewish. But in The Trial of George Chapman (1930) there is something more definite:
"Several prominent officials have from time to time asserted that they had established his identity. The late Sir Melville Macnaghten, the late Sir Robert Anderson, Sir Henry Smith, and many others of less importance have assured us regarding this."

So had Hargrave Adam misunderstood, or is it possible that Smith really did have a pet theory of his own - perhaps one that he became more convinced by in the last decade of his life (as did others by other pet theories late in life)?

In fact, isn't "I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago" an odd way of putting it? Why not "I have no more idea now who he was ..."? Yet how could he have had knowledge of who the Ripper was but not where he lived ...?