Reid Challenges Anderson 1910

[Gary Barnett]

Hi Gary, I don't know where Dew said anything about Fanny at the garden gate (sounds like the title of a music hall song!), butin I Caught Crippen he did say she stood at her 'gate' and then returned inside her 'cottage', which does perhaps give the impression of something nicer than Berner Street was.


I, of course, made a mistake earlier. Reid took the stuff belonging to Stride, not Chapman. I was writing something about Chapman and the name stuff in my mind. Memory loss, I suppose.

Thanks, Paul, that was what I was thinking of. I should’ve checked the quote first.

There’s obviously an element of poetic licence there which is quite common in memoirs. I sense it in Ben Leesons book and even more strongly in Arthur Harding’s. They give the impression that they were personally involved in events when they probably weren’t. But that’s part of the charm of them, I think. It’s quite fun to dig about and find out something that catches them out. ‘Gotcha! you old spoofer.’ moments. :-)

[Chris Phillips]

Didn’t Dew say something about Fanny Mortimer standing by her garden gate?

Being a bit hazy about details or pretending you personally witnessed something when you didn’t is par for the course in memoirs, but I find it amazing that the man who dragged PP all over London looking for her soldiers could later claim that none of the nine were seen in the company of men. That’s a major memory lapse. Unless he didn’t believe her or he didn’t include Tabram in the nine.

This article does make it explicit that he included Tabram (as "Turner").

[Gary Barnett]

This article does make it explicit that he included Tabram (as "Turner").

Ah, thanks, Chris.

So either he forgot his dealings with PP or he didn’t believe her?

Insignificant details are easy to forget or misremember, but dragging Poll from barracks to barracks and watching her performance at Tabram’s inquest was hardly insignificant. I doubt he forgot that.

[Paul]

Thanks, Paul, that was what I was thinking of. I should’ve checked the quote first.

There’s obviously an element of poetic licence there which is quite common in memoirs. I sense it in Ben Leesons book and even more strongly in Arthur Harding’s. They give the impression that they were personally involved in events when they probably weren’t. But that’s part of the charm of them, I think. It’s quite fun to dig about and find out something that catches them out. ‘Gotcha! you old spoofer.’ moments. :-)

Autobiographies are notoriously unreliable, of course, and verifying what they say is sort of history 101. The problems come when what they say is unverifiable! That's when other techniques are needed. Leeson is well-known to be unreliable, and Harding got mixed up quite a bit. But if a memoir is honest, it's often as valuable to know what people thought had happened as it is to know what did happen.

[Gary Barnett]

Autobiographies are notoriously unreliable, of course, and verifying what they say is sort of history 101. The problems come when what they say is unverifiable! That's when other techniques are needed. Leeson is well-known to be unreliable, and Harding got mixed up quite a bit. But if a memoir is honest, it's often as valuable to know what people thought had happened as it is to know what did happen.

Yes, I have Arthur Harding (and you and Debs) to thank for my fascinating Biddy the Chiver journey. As much as anything, it was Raphael Samuel saying he had been unable to ID her that intrigued me. Harding apparently said that everyone had wanted to buy him a drink after Biddy was acquitted of glassing a woman, the implication being that he’d somehow been instrumental in the acquittal. The truth (I think) is that the two women had been as bad as each other during the fight in which the other woman’s face got cut with a bottle. Charges weren’t brought against either of them for the fight, but they were brought against Biddy for her actions after she had been arrested. There’s nothing to suggest that Harding was involved in any way.

[Paul]

Yes, I have Arthur Harding (and you and Debs) to thank for my fascinating Biddy the Chiver journey. As much as anything, it was Raphael Samuel saying he had been unable to ID her that intrigued me. Harding apparently said that everyone had wanted to buy him a drink after Biddy was acquitted of glassing a woman, the implication being that he’d somehow been instrumental in the acquittal. The truth (I think) is that the two women had been as bad as each other during the fight in which the other woman’s face got cut with a bottle. Charges weren’t brought against either of them for the fight, but they were brought against Biddy for her actions after she had been arrested. There’s nothing to suggest that Harding was involved in any way.

Long, long ago in a galaxy far... Er, well, it was long, long ago, I was taken to meet Raphael Samuel by someone who knew him well. He was not at home. I doubt that I would have appreciated the meeting very much at the time, especially as I had not read the Harding book, but it's one of those moment that I wish I had to look back on. For all that Arthur Harding is unreliable, he provides a great insight into the people and the place. I wish there were a lot more personal recollections like his book.

[Gary Barnett]

Long, long ago in a galaxy far... Er, well, it was long, long ago, I was taken to meet Raphael Samuel by someone who knew him well. He was not at home. I doubt that I would have appreciated the meeting very much at the time, especially as I had not read the Harding book, but it's one of those moment that I wish I had to look back on. For all that Arthur Harding is unreliable, he provides a great insight into the people and the place. I wish there were a lot more personal recollections like his book.

Yes, without Harding I doubt I would ever have heard of Biddy the C.

I’ve been along to the Bishopsgate Institute a few times to access the handwritten versions of Harding’s stories. They also hold copies of the recorded interviews between Samuel and Harding, which you can access if you bring your own CD player. I haven’t done that yet, but I really must. The whole reason I got interested in Harding was to see if he made any mention of my maternal grandfather or his brother who were contemporaries of his and ‘Spitalfields terrors’. It’s possible that they did get a mention but their stories didn’t make the book.

They other thing I’m ashamed to admit is that I’m not totally sure how you pronounce ‘Chiver’. I’d take Arthur’s word on that.

[Paul]

Yes, without Harding I doubt I would ever have heard of Biddy the C.

I’ve been along to the Bishopsgate Institute a few times to access the handwritten versions of Harding’s stories. They also hold copies of the recorded interviews between Samuel and Harding, which you can access if you bring your own CD player. I haven’t done that yet, but I really must. The whole reason I got interested in Harding was to see if he made any mention of my maternal grandfather or his brother who were contemporaries of his and ‘Spitalfields terrors’. It’s possible that they did get a mention but their stories didn’t make the book.

They other thing I’m ashamed to admit is that I’m not totally sure how you pronounce ‘Chiver’. I’d take Arthur’s word on that.

I'd have thought it was pronounced in the same way as Chiver's jelly or something. But it could be "shiver", as in the Romany word for a knife, shiv. As you say, though, Mr Harding's pronunciation would be best.

[Trevor Marriott]

Who are the researchers who have said Reid's memory was failing? I'm not trying to put you on the spot, just trying to establish who it is who said the things you say have been said. It's important that we can see who has said it and, more importantly, why.

The why, has already been discussed, it is immaterial who they were but I am sure they will know because history has a habit of repeating itself.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Scott Nelson]

For what it's worth, it does contain another obvious indication that not all Reid's statements about the murders are to be relied on. He is quoted as placing Sir Henry Smith among those who had claimed to know the identity of the murderer, whereas in his memoirs three years earlier Smith had said the opposite.

Maybe Henry Smith changed his mind about the Ripper's identity in the three years hence.

[Chris Phillips]

Maybe Henry Smith changed his mind about the Ripper's identity in the three years hence.

That would probably be the Maybrickian way of looking at it.

[Scott Nelson]

That would probably be the Maybrickian way of looking at it.

But H.L. Adam in The Trial of George Chapman (1930) said Henry Smith assured him the Ripper's identity was known to the police.

[Paul]

The why, has already been discussed, it is immaterial who they were but I am sure they will know because history has a habit of repeating itself.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, okay, but if we don't know who is saying it, and if we can't see the evidence they have, we can't know that you're not mistaken.

[Howard Brown]

But H.L. Adam in The Trial of George Chapman (1930) said Henry Smith assured him the Ripper's identity was known to the police.

Twenty years before Adam's book, Smith said otherwise.

East London Observer
October 22, 1910
***********

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, okay, but if we don't know who is saying it, and if we can't see the evidence they have, we can't know that you're not mistaken.

I can assure you I am not mistaken the reception and comments back then were what I was expecting from the "prop up the old accepted facts" brigade and its still the same today, with all the excuses under the sun being made to show good reason why Reid was not telling the truth about the Kelly murder and that the real damaging comment to the brigade about the non removal of Kellys organs by the killer is hard to accept for some.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk