Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reid Challenges Anderson 1910

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by John Malcolm View Post
    Did he, though? He certainly implied it, but I don't remember reading anywhere that he actually contradicted Anderson about the murderer's identity. I found Smith's statements like "I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago" and "he completely beat me and every police officer in London" to be suspiciously ambiguous. If that's as close as it gets...

    Hi John,
    I was trying to avoid that little complicating factor. It was fresh in my mind because I was re-reading parts of your books the other night. I'd almost forgotten how good it is. I doubt Trevor has read it, or would take what you say on board, but you seem to have touched all bases.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Malcolm
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    As far as we know, Smith unambiguously asserted the opposite...
    Did he, though? He certainly implied it, but I don't remember reading anywhere that he actually contradicted Anderson about the murderer's identity. I found Smith's statements like "I have no more idea now where he lived than I had twenty years ago" and "he completely beat me and every police officer in London" to be suspiciously ambiguous. If that's as close as it gets...

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    Hi Chris, I understood the point you were making and as you have never come across as someone with the slightest interest in point scoring, it hadn't even crossed my mind that you might be doing so. I am genuiely grateful when anyone points out errors in the A to Z, as every error corrected improves the accuracy and reliability of the book. I was just confirming that H.L. Adam did not say that Smith had told him anything, and offering a small explanation of why we may have said he did, it being our conjecture as well as Scott's.

    Thanks. I understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    Obviously I'm just trying to get things straight, not trying to score points against the A-Z or anything like that.


    The reason I said it was a mistake is that the A-Z says "H. L. Adam, in the preface to The Trial of George Chapman, names Major Smith as one of the senior policemen who had confidentially told him that the Ripper's identity was definitely known ..."


    I'm just saying that's an error because "confidentially told him" isn't in that preface.

    Hi Chris, I understood the point you were making and as you have never come across as someone with the slightest interest in point scoring, it hadn't even crossed my mind that you might be doing so. I am genuiely grateful when anyone points out errors in the A to Z, as every error corrected improves the accuracy and reliability of the book. I was just confirming that H.L. Adam did not say that Smith had told him anything, and offering a small explanation of why we may have said he did, it being our conjecture as well as Scott's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul View Post
    Erm, as we know, in Trial of George Chapman H.L. Adam says only that Major Smith was one of those who had asserted that the identity of the murderer was known. As far as we know, Smith unambiguously asserted the opposite, so either Adam was in error or Smith changed his mind and confided his opinion to Adam or to someone or in some source we don't have. I have deleted from the new A to Z ms the satement that Smith told Adam. I don't know how well - or if - Smith and Adam knew each other.

    Obviously I'm just trying to get things straight, not trying to score points against the A-Z or anything like that.


    The reason I said it was a mistake is that the A-Z says "H. L. Adam, in the preface to The Trial of George Chapman, names Major Smith as one of the senior policemen who had confidentially told him that the Ripper's identity was definitely known ..."


    I'm just saying that's an error because "confidentially told him" isn't in that preface.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    Now I'm really confused. I thought we were trying to work out why Reid is quoted as saying Smith claimed to know who the killer was. And I really thought Paul had said that statement in the A-Z was going to be removed.


    If you mean it's a mistake in the A-Z and a conjecture on your part, fair enough, but I still think Adam's wording implies Smith had said it publicly.

    Erm, as we know, in Trial of George Chapman H.L. Adam says only that Major Smith was one of those who had asserted that the identity of the murderer was known. As far as we know, Smith unambiguously asserted the opposite, so either Adam was in error or Smith changed his mind and confided his opinion to Adam or to someone or in some source we don't have. I have deleted from the new A to Z ms the satement that Smith told Adam. I don't know how well - or if - Smith and Adam knew each other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Reid didn't know about it to my knowledge -- he wasn't in the loop about Anderson's suspect. He was reacting to what Anderson said in print.

    Smith's telling Adam in private is my conjecture. It's not a mistake in the A-Z.

    Now I'm really confused. I thought we were trying to work out why Reid is quoted as saying Smith claimed to know who the killer was. And I really thought Paul had said that statement in the A-Z was going to be removed.


    If you mean it's a mistake in the A-Z and a conjecture on your part, fair enough, but I still think Adam's wording implies Smith had said it publicly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Reid didn't know about it to my knowledge -- he wasn't in the loop about Anderson's suspect. He was reacting to what Anderson said in print.

    Smith's telling Adam in private is my conjecture. It's not a mistake in the A-Z.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    No, Smith may have told Adam.

    What I was getting at was - if this wasn't a mistake on Reid's part, and if Smith told Adam privately and not Reid - then how did Reid know about it?


    But if Smith's telling Adam privately is a mistake in the A-Z maybe the point is academic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    Isn't this language - "assured us" and "declarations" - talking about public claims made by these men, not private confidences?
    I have a feeling quite a bit about the identity of the Ripper was discussed in private.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
    And do you think that Smith told Reid this privately, and that's what Reid is referring to in this article from 1913?
    No, Smith may have told Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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
    I am not suggesting that you are lying about anything. I am politely asking you to show what has been said by the people you allege are claiming Reid suffered memory loss. It's a completely fair to ask you to cite what people have said. I would also like to see examples of the so-called old brigade’s ‘all manner of excuses trying to prove Reid was mistaken. You see, we shouldn't just accept what you say. We shouldn't accept hearsay, should we?

    The 1913 interview might show that Reid’s mind was as sharp as a needle, but Anderson’s mind remained sharp until he died as well, so it doesn't make any difference. But here's the point, Trevor: if Reid did not know about the positive eye-witness identification of the suspect, and it is clear that he didn’t, then his ignorance has no bearing at all on anything Anderson said. To put it another way, what Reid said about Kelly could be 100% correct, but it doesn't mean he knew about Anderson's suspect.

    Anyway, before you start asking questions, don’t you think it would be a courtesy to properly answer mine? But I will answer your question. I have no idea whether Reid’s memory was failing or not, nor do I know whether he was suffering from memory loss. What we know is that he said things which were demonstrably wrong. That's a fact no matter what his accuracy about Kelly may have been. Furthermore, his errors suggest that he wasn’t as well-informed as he thought.

    And as far as I can recall, nothing Reid said about the murder of Mary Kelly ‘kicks a big hole’ in anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Absolutely, Chris....thank you for mentioning it.

    I was going to suggest that !


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Absolutely, Chris....thank you for mentioning it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Phillips
    replied
    Perhaps it deserves its own thread. Please.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X