Reid Challenges Anderson 1910

[Paul]

The body parts are open to interpretation.

The issues I highlighted are hardly special pleading and more a common sense evaluation.

Unfortunately, the argument was that Reid's statement that there were no Jews suspected at the time of the murders was being used to discredit what Anderson had written. Common sense isn't always the best tool in a historian's armory, and it is dangerous to speculate that Reid wrote one thing but meant something else, especially when the something else is being used to undermine the authority of another source.

[Edward Stow]

The main point Reid was making in that part of the article is that Anderson's theory - or rather solution as Anderson expressed certainty - about the Jewish suspect was not supported on the ground at the time. From Reid that clearly has force.

Historical sources are very frequently filled with ambiguity and inaccuracy that has to be explained or worked around. In such instances commons sense is the best tool. Common sense is almost always the best tool!

[Paul]

Paul
I think it was fairly obviously purloined as it is in different handwriting so was not his personal note.
There is also a hole in the top left, like the page had been torn from a file.
And it was embossed and so on official stationery. Why would he do a personal note on official stationery?
Conversely is it likely Swanson took home with him quantities of official notepaper to make notes for his private edification?

My immediate thought on seeing the different handwriting, the torn corner and the embossed header was: 'what a naughty fellow he was.'
Different individuals obviously react differently to the evidence in front of their eyes.

Indeed it isn't of great importance in the scheme of things (but then again neither is 'Ripperology') but it is almost certainly (of course we cannot be 100% sure) a instance of a policeman pilfering from the official files. Which is perhaps slightly interesting.

Also I alluded to the prevailing opinion in some quarters that Swanson's faeses don't stink. The reluctance to think ill of him is, I would suggest, a symptom of that - even for the minor transgression of purloining a file note.
As yet I haven't got Adam's book so I don't know what his conclusion is or even if he offers an opinion.

Why wouldn’t Swanson make a note to himself on embossed paper if there was a plentiful supply of embossed paper and he had nothing else to hand? It is not necessary for him to have made a note to himself at home, so whether he had embossed paper there or not is irrelevant. But in fact the whole of the foregoing is irrelevant because it clearly wasn’t written by him, as you note, but it could have been prepared at his request by a secretary, as many documents bearing his signature were and as the rather garnd penmanship might suggest. It may even have been prepared for him at the request of someone else. It would still have been an aide memoire, which seems to have been its purpose.

Perhaps I am just reluctant to attribute even minor theft to someone when there is no real evidence of any wrongdoing.

The paper could have been nicked from a file, of course, but it’s not ‘obviously’ so.

[Chris Phillips]

Unfortunately, the argument was that Reid's statement that there were no Jews suspected at the time of the murders was being used to discredit what Anderson had written. Common sense isn't always the best tool in a historian's armory, and it is dangerous to speculate that Reid wrote one thing but meant something else, especially when the something else is being used to undermine the authority of another source.

Yes. Obviously there's a danger in arguing, as Edward is doing, that Reid didn't mean what he wrote, but on the contrary meant that a Jew was suspected but that he "dismissed this instance". Because it raises the possibility that Pizer wasn't the only contemporary Jewish suspect that Reid was dismissing.

On that basis Reid might even have been aware of Anderson's suspect at the time, but in 1910 felt he could be dismissed too!

[Paul]

The main point Reid was making in that part of the article is that Anderson's theory - or rather solution as Anderson expressed certainty - about the Jewish suspect was not supported on the ground at the time. From Reid that clearly has force.

Historical sources are very frequently filled with ambiguity and inaccuracy that has to be explained or worked around. In such instances commons sense is the best tool. Common sense is almost always the best tool!

Yes, I understood the point Reid was making. I was referring to Trevor's use of Reid.


As you say, common sense is 'almost always', which seems to broadly agree with my observation that common sense 'isn't always'. Sometimes common sense isn't quite enough, as I seem to recall Sir Geoffrey Elton observing in his The Practice of History. But it is of no matter.

[R. J. Palmer]

Where is says the body (i.e. Druitt) was found in the river before the first of the murders was committed - I would suggest that was a slip of the pen and he meant before the last of the murders was committed. People do commit typos! I think Reid knew the main body of Ripper murders happened in 1888.

In support of this, Reid makes a deliberate point of stating there had been 'nine' Whitechapel murders. This would only be relevant if Reid was disputing the notion that Mary Kelly had been the last victim. Otherwise, why would it matter?

It wouldn't have made one iota of difference to the Druitt theory if there had been 5 victims, 9 victims, or 109 victims, if the series had commenced after 1 January 1889--so, yes, if we follow Reid's thought-process, I do tend to agree that he meant 'last' of the murders, rather than the 'first,' though I suppose others will dispute this.

Anger can lead to Freudian slips. It must have goaded the old detective that he had worn out his boot leather pounding the pavements in 1888-1891, and now the smart set was claiming the crimes had been solved--and they hadn't bothered to even tell him!

[Paul]

Yes. Obviously there's a danger in arguing, as Edward is doing, that Reid didn't mean what he wrote, but on the contrary meant that a Jew was suspected but that he "dismissed this instance". Because it raises the possibility that Pizer wasn't the only contemporary Jewish suspect that Reid was dismissing.

On that basis Reid might even have been aware of Anderson's suspect at the time, but in 1910 felt he could be dismissed too!

True. And that seems to be the substance of Trevor's argument. The truth of your original observation, that there was at least one Jewish suspect, not none as Reid stated, remains the case, making it necessary to try and reconcile what Reid said with the facts. And here we are...

[Edward Stow]

Paul
If it was written by a secretary or for someone else then it wasn't his personal document.
You are comfortable with Swanson stealing paper seemingly. I was thrashed at junior school for misusing a few sheets of scrap paper.

[Chris Phillips]

In support of this, Reid makes a deliberate point of stating there had been 'nine' Whitechapel murders. This would only be relevant if Reid was disputing the notion that Mary Kelly had been the last victim. Otherwise, why would it matter?

It wouldn't have made one iota of difference to the Druitt theory if there had been 5 victims, 9 victims, or 109 victims, if the series had commenced after 1 January 1889--so, yes, if we follow Reid's thought-process, I do tend to agree that he meant 'last' of the murders, rather than the 'first,' though I suppose others will dispute this.

It's obviously garbled in some way, because it's so nonsensical as it stands. "First" being an error for "last" seems a plausible enough explanation. Perhaps it could have been a transcription or printer's error at the newspaper rather than one on Reid's part?

But there are so many problems with the letter as a whole that I don't understand the resistance in some quarters to the obvious explanation that people's memories play tricks and reminiscences written in retirement can't be expected to be reliable.

[Paul]

In support of this, Reid makes a deliberate point of stating there had been 'nine' Whitechapel murders. This would only be relevant if Reid was disputing the notion that Mary Kelly had been the last victim. Otherwise, why would it matter?

It wouldn't have made one iota of difference to the Druitt theory if there had been 5 victims, 9 victims, or 109 victims, if the series had commenced after 1 January 1889--so, yes, if we follow Reid's thought-process, I do tend to agree that he meant 'last' of the murders, rather than the 'first,' though I suppose others will dispute this.

Anger can lead to Freudian slips. It must have goaded the old detective that he had worn out his boot leather pounding the pavements in 1888-1891, and now the smart set was claiming the crimes had been solved--and they hadn't bothered to even tell him!

He certainly seems to have been very reistant to any idea that the Ripper had been caught. In the Morning Advertiser, 6 April 1903, when cossing swords with "Unofficial", he tuned his attention to Abberline's ideas concerning Klosowski. He wrote that Klosowski would have been 22 when the Ripper crimes were committed and was a barber and would know how to use a knife or razor with skill, whereas "the murders were committed in a manner that in many instances went to show that the weapon used was blunt". And "So I think that we can dismiss it from our minds that Klosowski had anything to do with the crimes of 'Jack the Ripper.'

That Klosowski was 22 and the Ripper's knife was blunt seem to be the best of and perhaps the only reasons Reid had for dismissing Klosowski.

In that article, by the way, Reid said "Unofficial" had identified his source for the Ripper having drowned in the Thames as Major Griffiths' book. Reid wrote, "I must confess that although I have read some thousands of books I have never heard of the book in question...About 40 years ago there was some fun caused by asking "Wh's Griffiths?"...The question may now again be asked - Who's Griffiths, and where did he obtain his information?"

[Trevor Marriott]

It's obviously garbled in some way, because it's so nonsensical as it stands. "First" being an error for "last" seems a plausible enough explanation. Perhaps it could have been a transcription or printer's error at the newspaper rather than one on Reid's part?

But there are so many problems with the letter as a whole that I don't understand the resistance in some quarters to the obvious explanation that people's memories play tricks and reminiscences written in retirement can't be expected to be reliable.

But on that basis you cannot dismiss what he says about the Kelly murder, because he gets it all spot on apart from two minor mistakes so how can it be said that his memory was not as is should have been, and besides the reporter stated that he had an array of pictures and documents relating to the murders which he was perhaps referring to.


I dont buy this explanation about his failing memory to negate what he says about the Kelly murder he was there present, and in charge of Whitechapel CID so if anyone knew the truth it should have been him.


If you are going to use the failing memory card lets play it against Anderson.Swanson, Macnaghten. they all wrote things in later years no one seems to be bringing them down saying what they wrote was wrong!




www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Paul]

Paul
If it was written by a secretary or for someone else then it wasn't his personal document.
You are comfortable with Swanson stealing paper seemingly. I was thrashed at junior school for misusing a few sheets of scrap paper.

That must have been a tough school! But I didn't say or intimate anything about being comfortable with stealing or even misusing paper.



I'm at a loss to know why a document written at his request and for his personal use ceases to be his personal document just because it was written by a secretary. If the paper was written as an aide memoire for Swanson, be it at his request or at the request of someone else, it was for his personal use and not a file document. No offence, but I feel like I'm tumbling down a rabbit hole here... Is it being proposed that every piece of Metropolitan Police paper used by a senior police officer in Victorian times was the absolute property the Metropolitan Police and had to be officially filed?

[Chris Phillips]

If you are going to use the failing memory card lets play it against Anderson.Swanson, Macnaghten. they all wrote things in later years no one seems to be bringing them down saying what they wrote was wrong!

In fact that's exactly what I'm saying. In the post you've just replied to I said that memories played tricks and post-retirement reminiscences weren't reliable.

Earlier I said "Obviously Reid's recollections were very unreliable in some respects, like the reminiscences of many of the Ripper detectives. They should all be treated with caution, whether they come from Reid, Anderson. Abberline, Swanson or whoever." [emphasis added]

[Paul]

In fact that's exactly what I'm saying. In the post you've just replied to I said that memories played tricks and post-retirement reminiscences weren't reliable.

Earlier I said "Obviously Reid's recollections were very unreliable in some respects, like the reminiscences of many of the Ripper detectives. They should all be treated with caution, whether they come from Reid, Anderson. Abberline, Swanson or whoever." [emphasis added]

If I may, Chris, that's what most people say too, including me. It's not unusual and I don't know where Trevor get's the idea that this isn't being done.

[Chris G.]

In fact that's exactly what I'm saying. In the post you've just replied to I said that memories played tricks and post-retirement reminiscences weren't reliable.

Earlier I said "Obviously Reid's recollections were very unreliable in some respects, like the reminiscences of many of the Ripper detectives. They should all be treated with caution, whether they come from Reid, Anderson. Abberline, Swanson or whoever." [emphasis added]

If I may, Chris, that's what most people say too, including me. It's not unusual and I don't know where Trevor get's the idea that this isn't being done.

As many of you may know, in addition to writing on the Whitechapel murders, I am a published historian of the War of 1812 in the Chesapeake Bay. When I do research on the War of 1812, the first-hand accounts that I put most store in are those that are written at the time. Reminiscences written many years later must always be suspect.

Here's one little example for you to ponder that comes from my work on the war:

I have written about Francis Scott Key writing what he initially called "The Defence [sic] of Fort M'Henry" later retitled as "The Star-Spangled Banner," the song that became this nation's national anthem during the presidency of Herbert Hoover in 1931, due to lobbying by two key patriotic Marylanders, Congressman Charles Linthicum and Mrs Reuben Ross Holloway (pictured below). This is usually said to have been a poem which was set to the music of a "British drinking song" -- two lingering misconceptions that are always bandied about as "fact." What I mean is, we know that Key meant the words to be the lyrics for a song, because he had written a similar song titled "The Warrior Returns" ten years earlier, at the time of the Tripoli War, and those lyrics were set to the same music, "To Anacreon in Heaven." You remember, classmates -- *nudge nudge * that British drinking song, right? No, actually that "factoid" is wrong too... it wasn't exactly a sawdust on the floor pub song sung in the low drinking holes of Britain. Rather it was a song sung by the Anacreontic Society, a gentleman's club that met to sing songs and read poetry. Here for your edification is a caricature by James Gillray, "Anacreontick's in full Song" showing such dandyfied worthies in full song. Anacreon being a Greek lyric poet, which in itself indicated how high-falutin' they were. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anacreontic_Song for more on the society and their song.

So then, what do we make of the reminiscences of Marylander Colonel Mendes Cohen, a private in Captain Joseph Hopper Nicholson's artillery company at the time of the September 13-14, 1814 bombardment of Fort McHenry at the entrance to Baltimore harbor, and who dictated to a young nephew his reminiscences of the bombardment and the writing of the anthem in 1870, that is 56 years after the events of 1814? And you think poor Inspector Reid had a bit of trouble trying to remember what went on in 1888?

Cohen tells us that Georgetown lawyer Key and his party landed at Fort McHenry as the British Royal Navy bombardment fleet withdrew and the whole British fleet of some 30 men of war including smaller vessels prepared to vacate the Patapsco and thereafter the Chesapeake Bay (and get ready to attack New Orleans in 3 months later, in December 1814-January 1815, a great American defensive "victory."

Along with Key landing at the fort then was Col. John S. Skinner, U.S. Agent for Prisoner Exchange, Key's partner in the successful effort to free a British prisoner, Dr. William Beanes of Upper Marlboro, arrested for traitorous conduct (arresting British stragglers) during the British retreat from Washington D.C. which they had captured and sacked August 24-25 (you'll remember. . . *warning* another mistaken view of what happened here, folks, how the Canadians burned the White House?

So, according to Cohen, these three men came ashore at the fort, Key, Skinner and the successfully freed Dr. Beanes, and let me mention here that even this might be a dodgy claim -- in their light sailing craft, Key and his party might have been able to sail over the sunken vessels the U.S. Navy had sunk in the channel to stop the bigger British war vessels from entering the inner harbor. That is, if Key et al. were able to get past the barriers, they could have sailed directly to the quays of downtown Baltimore.

Be that as it may, Cohen's claim is that Key came ashore with the lyrics of the song, and that the garrison in the fort had fun passing the lyrics around and coming up suitable music to set the words to. Utter bunkum! It didn't happen that way.

As an aside, Col. Cohen also claimed that he was able to eat Kosher rations at the fort during the crisis. However the Jewish Museum in Baltimore states: "To date, however, our extensive research into the Cohen Family has not been able to substantiate the fact that kosher rations were actually part of the food delivery." See http://jewishmuseummd.org/tag/fort-mchenry/.

Here is my article on whether Francis Scott Key saw the Star-Spangled Banner flying over Fort McHenry during the battle and the truth about the writing of future national anthem http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/th...pangled-banner.

Colonel Mendes Cohen (1796-1879) in Later Life



Mrs Reuben Ross Holloway demonstrates the proper way to hold the flags of the United States and Great Britain at the same time



"The Star Spangled Banner," by Percy Moran, 1913: Francis Scott Key is shown watching the flag wave above Fort McHenry -- but did he? Is Moran using artistic license?