Henry Smith, Daily Express 5th. Oct. 1910

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Quite interesting.

Reads to me like Sir Henry wasn't far away from him, probably based on where the apron was found, and, more importantly, they already had a description of him; otherwise, what is the point of the: "very fair description" in the context of this sentence?

Wonder which sighting and by whom?

[Cogidubnus]

That bloody water trough...

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

Quite interesting.

Reads to me like Sir Henry wasn't far away from him, probably based on where the apron was found, and, more importantly, they already had a description of him; otherwise, what is the point of the: "very fair description" in the context of this sentence?

Hi Mac

But wasn't Sir Henry renowned for being something of a self-publicist, and in later years stretching the truth somewhat to improve his image?

Dave

[Supe]

Before anyone gets too deeply into an exegesis of the Smith interview it might be well to recall that he was not well-regarded for honesty by his peers.

Indeed, as the A to Z (original) reported "The Scotland Yard copy [of Smith's Memoirs From Constabler to Commissioner] contains a handwritten annotation under the author's name: A good raconteur and a good fellow, but not strictly veracious: most of the book consists of after dinner stories outside his personal experience. In dealing with matters within his own knowledge he is often far from accurate as my knowledge of the facts assures me. G.H.E. [George H. Edwards, secretary to the Metropolitan Police.]

His factual mistakes are of a different level from those of Anderson or Macnaghten, such as his claim tohave been five minutes behind the Ripper -- that was patently impossible unless they were near neighbors.

Anyway,Smith is to be believed at one's great peril.

Don.

[Wickerman]

(re: Smith)
His factual mistakes are of a different level from those of Anderson or Macnaghten, such as his claim tohave been five minutes behind the Ripper -- that was patently impossible unless they were near neighbors.

Perhaps Smith is an extreme example of the inexactitudes offered in all official memoirs from police officials of this period.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

windbag

Hello Don, Jon. Rather a police analogue of this nautical chap?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVDuHL9Gx-4

Cheers.
LC

[Supe]

Lynn,

Rather a police analogue of this nautical chap?

From what little I saw a few minutes ago I would say "Yes!" Looks like fun and I'll store it to watch when i have more time.

Don.

[jason_c]

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

Quite interesting.

Reads to me like Sir Henry wasn't far away from him, probably based on where the apron was found, and, more importantly, they already had a description of him; otherwise, what is the point of the: "very fair description" in the context of this sentence?

Wonder which sighting and by whom?

I agree. I think the only way this can be true is if Smith was in Mitre Square whilst the apron portion was being found. That way Smith could convince himself he was only a few minutes behind the killer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I agree. I think the only way this can be true is if Smith was in Mitre Square whilst the apron portion was being found. That way Smith could convince himself he was only a few minutes behind the killer.

From memory, I think it was Smith who had trouble raising the troops at 3 o'clock, and went to the mortuary - could be wrong.

If right, then he may have indulged in a spot of poetic licence, i.e. with the apron being found at 2.55 and Smith rousing the troops at 3.00, then he's not far away.

The important point is that he has a description at this point. Clearly, it ain't Lawende's, so whose?

[Supe]

Mac,

The important point is that he has a description at this point. Clearly, it ain't Lawende's, so whose?

The truly important point is that Major Smith said he had a "very fair description" -- there is no evidence whatsoever that he had any description at that time . . . nor any evidence he saw bloody water swirling away in an outdoor sink in Dorset Street, which he claims in his memoirs From Constable to Commissioner. That title itself is rather an unwarrated embellishment as he was never a constable and joined the force as as an Assistant Commissioner in 1888.

It would seem Smith was one of those folks who never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

if the cap fits...

Mac,

The important point is that he has a description at this point. Clearly, it ain't Lawende's, so whose?

The truly important point is that Major Smith said he had a "very fair description" -- there is no evidence whatsoever that he had any description at that time . . . nor any evidence he saw bloody water swirling away in an outdoor sink in Dorset Street, which he claims in his memoirs From Constable to Commissioner. That title itself is rather an unwarrated embellishment as he was never a constable and joined the force as as an Assistant Commissioner in 1888.

It would seem Smith was one of those folks who never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Don.

Hello Don,

Sir Robert Anderson SAID it was a def. ascertained fact
Donald Swanson SAID it was an ID at a Seaside Home
Melville MacNaugthen SAID he had private info..

No known proof that the 'fact' was a fact at all.
No known proof of any Seaside Home ID.
No known proof of any private info.

Some tell me that I have to DISPROVE the above three statements. I say prove them. Show me official documented PROOF.

Henry Smith is accepted as pulling a fast one. If the cap fits...

Best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

This thread is about Major Smith and his veracity (or lack thereof). You have had ample opportunity to gainsay the words of Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten on other threads. If you have an opinion -- which at this temporal remove is all we have -- about Henry Smith please join in. Just don't drag in those other heads of King Charles, okay?

Don.

[Bridewell]

The important point is that he has a description at this point. Clearly, it ain't Lawende's, so whose?

Given the proximity in time which he (dubiously) claims, the description is either a complete fiction or one provided by one of his subordinates. Given his reputation, the former seems more likely.

Regards, Bridewell

[jason_c]

From memory, I think it was Smith who had trouble raising the troops at 3 o'clock, and went to the mortuary - could be wrong.

If right, then he may have indulged in a spot of poetic licence, i.e. with the apron being found at 2.55 and Smith rousing the troops at 3.00, then he's not far away.

The important point is that he has a description at this point. Clearly, it ain't Lawende's, so whose?

That's what I was implying. I cant remember the times off hand but if Smith is assuming the apron was left only a few minutes before it was found, and Smith is in Mitre Sq at this time, then the 5 min claim can be justified(if unlikely to be true).

Phil, MacNaghten mentioned his info in an official document, this gives it more credence than a newspaper interview given by a policeman in retirement.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

This thread is about Major Smith and his veracity (or lack thereof). You have had ample opportunity to gainsay the words of Anderson, Swanson and Macnaghten on other threads. If you have an opinion -- which at this temporal remove is all we have -- about Henry Smith please join in. Just don't drag in those other heads of King Charles, okay?

Don.

Hello Don,

thank you for your comments.

1) I know what this thread is about- I started it.
2) You brought the doubt of Smith's words in. I merely pointed out that whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
3) As you will know from historical record, King Charles(either of them) only had ONE head (each).

If I see comparison of doubted word, I reserve the right to compare with the words and claims of his contempories.

The cap you place on Smith's head fits all. Your opinion is noted, thank you for that.

Best wishes

Phìl

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jason,

With the greatest of respect, I opine that the only thing official about the MM is that it is on police notepaper, it is not adressed to anyone, and it is NOT stamped as are all other police documents in the files. Not even catalogued and dated by the filing clerk as rec'd.
Because he wrote it doesnt make it an official document. Its a personal opinion that is assumed meant for higher authority. This is as yet unproven.
I do agree in part about credence factor though.
Hope you are well?

Best wishes

Phil