|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mara
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | 
|
I read that The Star contained a comment by the head of the NY Police as to how they could have captured the Ripper in a couple of days, and the London police naturally took offense at the comment. But upon looking through The Star articles posted on this site, I can't find the comment and I was wondering if anyone knows exactly when this comment was made and whether there was any particular response from any individual members of the London force? Thanks. |
Alex Chisholm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Alex
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Hi Mara
Here are three reports offering the opinion of American detectives. I think the second one, Star 4 Oct., is the one you’re looking for.
I can’t be absolutely sure, but I don’t recall seeing any defence of London policing, in comparison to New York, in the pages of the Star or Telegraph.
The Star, 19 September 1888 page 3 reported:
Among the passengers by the City of Rome, from Liverpool to New York to-day, is a very quiet-looking man, whose name may appear on the ship’s list as Smith, or possibly Brown, but who will be readily recognised on the other side as a superintendent of what is, perhaps, the most successfully managed private detective agency in the world.
When a well-known detective takes the first holiday he has had for twelve years and runs across the big pond for a change of air and a glimpse of the highland home of his ancestors, he does not care to have his name printed in large type in a newspaper; hence it was that when a Star reporter spent half an hour in conversation with him before he left London yesterday he told him that if he would give him his opinion of the Whitechapel murder cases he should not be quoted by name. “I have been in Scotland for a month,” said he, “knocking about the Highlands, and whenever I came to where I could get a newspaper I found it impossible to refrain from eagerly devouring all I could find about these Whitechapel murders. At first I naturally expected to see the mystery cleared up at once; but as day by day has gone by, and each successive clue seems to have come to nought, I have about made up my mind that the identity of the murderer is one of those things that no fellow is going to find out. We Americans are generally credited in England with doing all we undertake on a gigantic scale, but I doubt if our records of crime show a parallel to such a series of atrocities as these Whitechapel murders, with so little result of the investigations that have been made.
I am well aware that the police of no city are in the habit of telling the world all they know or all they are doing to unravel a mystery, but I do believe that those who have been engaged in these cases have wasted a great deal of time, if, indeed, they have not wasted it all. I have great difficulty in persuading myself that the so-called Whitechapel horrors are the work of one hand. I recognise unmistakable evidences of the same method in the two most notorious cases, but I believe the police need not look among the drunken brutes or low-class lunatics for the author of the crimes.
BY FAR THE MOST SENSIBLE SUGGESTION
that has been made in connection with the subject, according to my observation, comes in a letter to The Star yesterday to the effect that specialists in medical science sometimes become so crazed by the pursuit of pet theories as to become capable of committing any crime that offers a possible elucidation of some physiological mystery. I do not mean to say that some physiologist has calmly planned and executed these murders for the sake of getting “specimens,” but I do say that if the culprit is ever discovered he is very likely to be found to be a man of education, and probably a monomaniac on the subject of science. I have been so strongly impressed with this idea that I have sometimes wished I had seen the Chapman body when it was first discovered. Surely there must have been some external evidence, if one may believe the newspapers, that the murder was neither the work of a common slaughterer, nor of a drunken vagabond, nor yet of a militiaman on a spree.”
This American detective is connected with an organisation that does its work for so much per day, and never accepts rewards, so he was not inclined to express an opinion as to what effect the earlier offering of a substantial reward might have had, but he did say that if it was necessary for the police to be stirred up to their duty in that way it was a sadder commentary on the police system than on the individual members of the force. “The police of London,” said he, “are not well paid men, and I do not see how any Government can expect to get brains at the price of brawn. If English detectives are not a bright lot as a class there is little wonder at it. The ranks of the detective force are not recruited from
AMONG MEN OF BRAINS.
Such men can find a better market elsewhere. I have had some experience, heretofore with the London police, and I have found them courteous and obliging in every particular, but I must confess that I am greatly surprised at the futility of their efforts in connection with these murders. However, it is an ill wind that blows no good, and if the British public is at all like the American, the very failures in these cases will be the means of bringing about an undeniably necessary reorganisation of police methods in London.”
A CITY DETECTIVE
in conversation with a Star reporter last night, called attention to one feature of the police regulations that militates seriously against successful detective work in London. He said that on two or three days in each week from 40 to 50 detectives are paraded before the hundreds of prisoners awaiting trial in Holloway Gaol, ostensibly for the purpose of spotting old offenders, but that it is quite as much to the advantage of the crooked ones as of the officers, since it makes them familiar with the faces of those who may “want” them at some future time, and thus affords them increased security. “I have always felt, when making that parade in Holloway, that it was a very silly custom,” said he, “and I have often wondered how the French or even the American police would laugh at such a way of doing things.”
The Star, 4 October 1888, page 2 reported:
An American Detective’s Opinion.
The Whitechapel murders are attracting widespread attention throughout America. Inspector Byrnes, of New York, was asked how he would proceed to solve the London mystery. He said: - “I should have gone right to work in a commonsense way, and not believed in mere theories. With the great power of the London police I should have manufactured victims for the murderer. I would have taken 50 female habitués of Whitechapel and covered the ground with them. Even if one fell a victim, I should get the murderer. Men un-uniformed should be scattered over the district so nothing could escape them. The crimes are all of the same class, and I would have determined the class to which the murderer belonged. But – pshaw! What’s the good of talking? The murderer would have been caught long ago.”
The Daily Telegraph, 9 October 1888, page 3 reported:
The following opinions are those of Mr. A. E. Knowles, who for many years was employed in America and in Great Britain in detective work. Mr. Knowles was a member of the Pinkerton private inquiry combination of New York, whose services are frequently retained by the Government of the United States, and subsequently he had a successful experience in the detective department of the Glasgow police. Latterly, having virtually retired from business, he has been resident in the metropolis, with which he is thoroughly familiar. Mr. Knowles, as an expert in criminal investigation, is convinced that the Whitechapel murderer is insane, because of the absence of motive and of the character of the mutilations which he perpetrates. That he is a coward is evidenced by the class of victims chosen, and the fact that these women must have been in a state of drink at the time of their death. The manner in which the culprit has eluded notice, and the way in which he guarded against suspicion both before and after the murders, shows that he is possessed of considerable intelligence, probably the cunning of the lunatic. The assassin must have means at his command by which he is enabled to change his abode, personal appearance, and dress at pleasure. Time has been wasted in looking amongst the rags of Whitechapel for him, and the step which should have been taken at the outset was to have sent information to every railway station and port within reasonable distance of London immediately after the first murder was reported. By these means every passenger out of the City on the Sunday would have been scrutinised. The police lost their opportunity at the time of the Hanbury-street murder. Had they adopted the same precautions as prevail now the man would have been captured. The murderer, Mr. Knowles believes, is not now in the East of London, and, the hue-and-cry being so great, he doubts his presence in England. Great precautions are necessary, as during a period of panic the imitative faculty is strong, as already shown by the commission of a similar crime at Gateshead. There are circumstances which justify the inference that the Whitechapel murderer is respectably connected, living alone in chambers, or possibly with a relative - and if the latter it cannot be expected that a mother or sister would hand him over to justice, but would do all she could to get him out of the country. Ten or twelve years ago a case occurred in America in which two children, both girls under fourteen, were found murdered. They were enticed from the streets at different times and their throats were cut. One body was thrown into a garden and the other into a piece of waste ground. The author of the crime could not be discovered. A little girl was sent out as a decoy, and was watched meanwhile by detectives. For days nothing occurred, but at last a man to whom suspicion pointed drew near. The success of the stratagem was marred, however, by the fear of the detectives that he might kill the girl before their eyes, and they dared not hide themselves. The individual suspected made off, but he was “shadowed,” and his address and connections were discovered. Owing to the political system prevailing the chief of the police could not be induced to issue a warrant, as, legally, there was absolutely no evidence. In England the man would have certainly been detained for inquiries. Every effort to interview him failed, and his family sent him out of the country, it is alleged, to avoid further inquiry. Mr. Knowles thinks that the English detective system might be reinforced by a small body of well-paid, well-dressed men of good education and proven intelligence, and of not more than 5ft. 7in. in height, as a person over that stature attracts attention. Mr. Pinkerton, in choosing his staff, invariably gives the preference to short men. Detectives need not of necessity be policemen.
Best Wishes
alex
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
While being in Missouri a couple of weeks after the Kelly murder, a Scotland Yard detective named H.L. Reeves spoke of the Whitechapel murders. He said,
"It is a little surprising that the force of detectives so skilled as those of Scotland Yard have not succeeded in capturing the murderer. The failure is no doubt due to the methods used in discovering criminals. In New York, Inspector Byrnes has every professional law breaker "tabled" that is, he knows who and where he is. When a crime has been committed he is able to point to the probable guilty party. This system is entirely lacking in the London force, and the detectives have to cover the entire criminal field in the search. If it were a conspiracy the English detectives would be in clover. In the case of political conspiracy, for instance, they would become members themselves and find a member who would peach on his fellows for money, for it has been the boast of England that when she wanted an Irish crime or political offender punished she would always do it by having an Irishman to become an informer. But when it is a case of one cool, calculating fellow, of who's secret nobody is possessed, England and her detectives are at sea."
Biographies of 19th century English detectives isn't really my bag. I'd like to know more about this Reeves guy. He seems to be a frustrated detective who knows something but couldn't talk freely in England. I think he is on the right track with his speculation of pursuing both the political agenda of the murderer which was shared, and the killer's own private agenda which he kept to himself. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 707
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Joe,
Living in Missouri myself, your post caught my eye. Do you know what a SY man was doing in Missouri weeks after the Kelly murder. This is rather interesting, especially since Tumblety was to die here years later.
What source did your quote come from?
Thanks,
Andy S. |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 65
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Hello Andrew,
I think this is the first time I've talked with you, and it's my pleasure. Let me iron out one loose end on this, and I'll get all the info to you really soon. I have the material in my hand, but the area I attained it from is far from my home. Thanks for your patience.
Joe |
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 66
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Ok, the fax machine just did its thing, and I've got the loose end all tied up. Andrew, if you can get a hold of the Atlanta Constitution of Friday November 23, 1888 you'll read about H.L. Reeves under the story title of "Why English Detectives Fail." It was a special article sent from Kansas City, Missouri dated Thurs Nov 22, 1888.
It didn't say why he was in Missouri, but this Nov 22 date does coincide with Tumblety's escape to France and the much publicized communications of Scotland Yard with the San Francisco Police Dept. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Hi Malta Joe and Andy,
I am just taking a stab at this (but being a Ripperologist, we have to take stab at things!). The Whitechapel Murders was not the only prominent crime in the 1880s. One, with international repercussions was the poison murder of Arthur Preller at the Southern Hotel in St. Louis, Mo. on Easter Sunday, 5 April 1886. The killer was Mr. Hugh Morris Brookes, a British solicitor (son of the head master of National School at Hyde, Cheshire), who practiced at Hyde from 1883 to 1888. He (Brookes) was tried in a complex trial (somewhat reminiscent of the Birchall/Benwall Murder in Windsor, Canada in 1890, except this is a poisoning), found guilty, and hanged (finally) at St. Louis on 10 August 1888. The account that I got these facts from is from Fredrick Boase's MODERN ENGLISH BIOGRAPHY, Volume IV, Col. 506. It mentions the source for Boase is THE PALL MALL BUDGET, 16 August 1888, pp.22-23 with prints of Brooks and Preller. I believe that another account is in Jay Robert Nash's BLOODLETTERS AND BADMEN. Possibly the mysterious English detective in Kansas City, Missouri (Mr. H. L. Reeves) may have been involved in the Brooks/Preller Case.
The account of the interview of the Detective called Mr. Brown or Mr. Smith, from THE STAR of 19 September 1888 suggests that Mr. Brown/Smith may be one of the Pinkertons, maybe William Pinkerton, the son of the firm's founder Allan Pinkerton. The clue seems to be that the detective's family is connected to the Scottish highlands (and is the Superintendent of the world's largest private detective firm...and has been at it for at least 12 years - Allan Pinkerton retired from running his firm in 1869 after a stroke).
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 709
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:16 am: |
|
Thanks Joe and Jeff. I live in St.Louis, but since it is not my native city (Chicago is) there is a lot of history I'm not aware of. The Preller case is part of that history unknown to me.
I should be able to get a look at the Kansas City paper this article originates from, but it will have to be done in person at a library. Online issues of the St. Louis or KC papers don't go back that far.
BTW -- Tumblety didn't settle in St. Louis until right before his death in, I think, 1903. The strange thing is that he came here in winter for the "warmer" climate. St. Louis is indeed warmer than New York, but if he were after warmth, why not Texas or Florida or California? Was there some other tie to St. Louis that attracted him? St. Louis has slipped a bit into the "podunk" status these days, but at one time it was the 6th largest city in the USA.
Andy S. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 548
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:31 pm: |
|
Hi Andy,
If it means anything, the muckraking reporter Lincoln Steffans, when he wrote his classic book THE SHAME OF THE CITIES (about municiple corruption in America) at the turn of the 20th Century, one of the main chapters was about corruption in St. Louis. It was considered up their with New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia as a leading city. And don't forget, in 1904 it was the site of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition (the setting of the Judy Garland film MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS).
Jeff |
Toni
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
i was wondering if you could answer a couple of queries for me for example: what did the new york times think of the british police force? |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
