Reid Challenges Anderson 1910

[John Malcolm]

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.

My fantasy dictates: All the major players (Smith included) knew the truth (the murderer's identity), but were seriously pissed off at Anderson for trying to let the cat out of the bag. Results: Cat back in the bag.

[Chris G.]

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.

My fantasy dictates: All the major players (Smith included) knew the truth (the murderer's identity), but were seriously pissed off at Anderson for trying to let the cat out of the bag. Results: Cat back in the bag.

Ah, Chapman. And wasn't it about Chapman that the now retired Abberline gave the opinion that the murderous barber was a likely candidate for the mantle of the Ripper? Per Hargrave Adam (again), Abberline to his former Sgt. Godley, "I see you've caught Jack the Ripper at last." So much for the opinion of another top police officer who should have been "in the know"!

[Cogidubnus]

My fantasy dictates: All the major players (Smith included) knew the truth (the murderer's identity), but were seriously pissed off at Anderson for trying to let the cat out of the bag. Results: Cat back in the bag.

My gut feel is something similar...I thought I was alone! Possibly I am...

[Scott Nelson]

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. -my quote.

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

East London Observer
October 22, 1910

Yes, but my belief is that some time after 1910, Smith apparently changed his tune. Stewart Evans, I believe, had in his possession a friendly letter exchange between Robert Anderson and Henry Smith after this date*. I made a conjecture in several articles that Anderson may have convinced Smith after 1910 that the Ripper's identity was known.

*Not that these letters between Anderson and Smith talked about the Ripper's identity, but showed that the two men were on friendly terms.

[Chris Phillips]

Yes, but my belief is that some time after 1910, Smith apparently changed his tune. Stewart Evans, I believe, had in his possession a friendly letter exchange between Robert Anderson and Henry Smith after this date*. I made a conjecture in several articles that Anderson may have convinced Smith after 1910 that the Ripper's identity was known.

*Not that these letters between Anderson and Smith talked about the Ripper's identity, but showed that the two men were on friendly terms.

And do you think that Smith told Reid this privately, and that's what Reid is referring to in this article from 1913?

[Chris Phillips]

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.

Actually, while the A-Z says Adam "names Major Smith as one of the senior policemen who had confidentially told him" that, I can't see that in the transcript at Casebook:
"As every one knows, who this mysterious criminal was has never been cleared up. 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. Sir Melville Macnaghten even went so far as to declare that he had once possessed documentary proof of the identity of the criminal, but that he had burnt the papers. An unprecedented thing, surely, for a police official to do! These declarations, as mere declarations without evidence to support them, are unsatisfactory. It is quite certain that nobody ever did know for certain who Jack-the-Ripper was"

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.trialgeorge.html

Isn't this language - "assured us" and "declarations" - talking about public claims made by these men, not private confidences?

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually, while the A-Z says Adam "names Major Smith as one of the senior policemen who had confidentially told him" that, I can't see that in the transcript at Casebook:
"As every one knows, who this mysterious criminal was has never been cleared up. 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. Sir Melville Macnaghten even went so far as to declare that he had once possessed documentary proof of the identity of the criminal, but that he had burnt the papers. An unprecedented thing, surely, for a police official to do! These declarations, as mere declarations without evidence to support them, are unsatisfactory. It is quite certain that nobody ever did know for certain who Jack-the-Ripper was"

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.trialgeorge.html

Isn't this language - "assured us" and "declarations" - talking about public claims made by these men, not private confidences?

Public or private, the fact is that no one knew the real identity of the killer, and that fact alone also questions the content of the marginalia and the mythical identification parade where it is suggested the killer was identified.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Paul]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The title of this thread is "Reid Challenges Anderson". As Chris has already pointed out, it is not about what Reid said about Kelly. What Reid says about Kelly may be reliable, but you have stated that Reid was involved in that investigation and his words therefore carry weight, was he well-informed and reliable about the things he wasn't involved in? That's whre he says things that are contentious, dubious, questionable, and downright wrong. So harping on about Kell doesn't address the question of Reid overall knowledge and reliability.

Questioning Reid is not a case of propping up old arguments, as you frequently claim, it is simply trying to establish his reliability. So, are people really suggesting that Reid was suffering memory loss, or is that just your spin on people not unquestioningly accepting what you are are saying?


What are people really saying, Trevor? As much as I appreciate your assurances, it's only fair to ask that you back them up with evidence. That's all.

[Paul]

Actually, while the A-Z says Adam "names Major Smith as one of the senior policemen who had confidentially told him" that, I can't see that in the transcript at Casebook:
"As every one knows, who this mysterious criminal was has never been cleared up. 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. Sir Melville Macnaghten even went so far as to declare that he had once possessed documentary proof of the identity of the criminal, but that he had burnt the papers. An unprecedented thing, surely, for a police official to do! These declarations, as mere declarations without evidence to support them, are unsatisfactory. It is quite certain that nobody ever did know for certain who Jack-the-Ripper was"

https://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.trialgeorge.html

Isn't this language - "assured us" and "declarations" - talking about public claims made by these men, not private confidences?

Chris,
I don't know why we have it that Smith told Adam personally. It will not appear in the new edition. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Paul]

Public or private, the fact is that no one knew the real identity of the killer, and that fact alone also questions the content of the marginalia and the mythical identification parade where it is suggested the killer was identified.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If it was a fact then we would not be discussing it. It isn't a fact, it's what you think. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, but it isn't a fact.

[Howard Brown]

I've established a thread for the Anderson penned book, Pseudo Criticism, here :

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=403423#post403423

I wasn't sure if John wanted me to post these excerpts from the book on this thread...but just in case :

[Trevor Marriott]

The title of this thread is "Reid Challenges Anderson". As Chris has already pointed out, it is not about what Reid said about Kelly. What Reid says about Kelly may be reliable, but you have stated that Reid was involved in that investigation and his words therefore carry weight, was he well-informed and reliable about the things he wasn't involved in? That's whre he says things that are contentious, dubious, questionable, and downright wrong. So harping on about Kell doesn't address the question of Reid overall knowledge and reliability.

Questioning Reid is not a case of propping up old arguments, as you frequently claim, it is simply trying to establish his reliability. So, are people really suggesting that Reid was suffering memory loss, or is that just your spin on people not unquestioningly accepting what you are are saying?

What are people really saying, Trevor? As much as I appreciate your assurances, it's only fair to ask that you back them up with evidence. That's all.

Are you suggesting that I am lying and that when I first made mention of this newspaper article and specifically referred to the part which related to Kelly, that everybody jumped with joy and said wow another part of the Ripper mystery shattered beyond all repair.

Of course the old brigade would come up with all manner of excuses to try to prove that Reid was mistaken and confused in 1896. Its what they do all the time in Ripperology and you should know that more than anyone else.

And the 1913 interview Howard posted clearly shows that all those years after 1896 his memory was a sharp as a needle.

Let me ask do you accept or reject the argument that in 1896 Reid`s memory was failing. or he was suffering from memory loss and that the part of that interview regarding Kelly should not be relied upon, or it can be relied upon, and as such kicks a big hole in the previously accepted facts?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chris Phillips]

Deleted.

[Howard Brown]

Trevor:

You're going around in circles like a dog chasing his tail....its funny at first but becomes tedious to watch since the onlooker already knew the outcome. You've made a career out of throwing oatmeal against a wall and hoping some of it sticks. Pursue that shtick elsewhere.

At no point in the thread starter did Reid comment specifically on the Kelly Murder.

Until the article magically re-materializes with specific reference to Kelly's murder, cease and desist from remarking any further on the matter.

I have no patience today, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor:

You're going around in circles like a dog chasing his tail....its funny at first but becomes tedious to watch since the onlooker already knew the outcome. You've made a career out of throwing oatmeal against a wall and hoping some of it sticks. Pursue that shtick elsewhere.

At no point in the thread starter did Reid comment specifically on the Kelly Murder.

Until the article magically re-materializes with specific reference to Kelly's murder, cease and desist from remarking any further on the matter.

I have no patience today, Trevor.

Well you being the newspaper whizz kid why dont you post it for all to see and comment on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk