The Sagar Saga: Finding the Missing Link
In January 1905, former City detective inspector Robert Sagar, who had just retired, apparently gave interviews to reporters of four London newspapers in which he spoke of his knowledge of Jack the Ripper.
The articles containing these interviews, while very similar (indicating that they must have taken place at the same time) are all, nevertheless, a little bit different from each other and, in October 2020, Chris Phillips prepared a helpful comparison of the four reports on his medieval genealogy website. He had, however, only located three reports from London newspapers, but was aware that there must have been a fourth report because such a report (different from the other three) was carried by some American newspapers, hence he included the Seattle Daily Times (of 4 February 1905) as his fourth report.
I have, however, now located the additional report in a London newspaper. It was in the Evening News of Saturday, 7 January 1905. It's not identical to the Seattle Daily Times report but it's close enough, especially in respect of the bit about Jack the Ripper, that, for comparison purposes, what Chris has labelled the Seattle Times report, can be regarded as the Evening News report. There are, nevertheless, some important differences between the two which I will be discussing.
So the four "interview" reports with Sagar that we have, are:
1. City Press of Saturday, 7 January, 1905.
2. Evening News of Saturday, 7 January, 1905.
3. Morning Leader of Monday, 9 January, 1905.
4. Daily News of Monday, 9 January, 1905
A quick glance through these reports reveals that one of them is, curiously, very different to the others.
While the reports in the Evening News, Morning Leader and Daily News all contain quotes from Sagar, the City Press does not. Its report is written purely in the third person, with no hint that its reporter had ever even spoken to the former detective.
The Morning Leader on the other hand tells us that, 'To a "Morning Leader" representative Mr. Sagar related some of his experiences'. The Daily News is even more explicit as to when its reporter spoke to Sagar. Hence, we are told that Sagar spoke to 'a representative of 'The Daily News on Saturday'.
That would seem to make sense. All four reporters spoke to Robert Sagar on Saturday, 7 January 1905, right?
WRONG!
That's impossible.
The City Press newspaper was published early on Saturday morning, so that it could not possibly have interviewed Sagar on Saturday and carried a report of the interview in its Saturday edition. Here is the proof that the City Press was published on Saturday morning in January 1905:
'The City Press is published early every Wednesday and Saturday morning...'
That the City Press doesn't refer to having spoken to Sagar now starts to make sense. It never did. The information in its article which appeared on the Saturday morning must have come from a source (probably a document) earlier in the week, no later than Friday. While the term might not have been used in 1905, let's call this document a Press Release.
So let's say that on Friday, the City of London Police provided a Press Release to the City Press to enable that newspaper to publish an exclusive report about Sagar's career in its Saturday morning edition.
Knowing that its story must have been based on a Press Release, it is instructive to compare the part of its report about Sagar's early life with the way that same part of the story was reported by the Morning Leader. Let's look at that:
City Press
A Lancashire man by birth, he was educated at Whalley Grammar School,
Morning Leader
A Lancashire man by birth, he was educated at Whalley Grammar School,
City Press
and found himself, as quite a young man, in London, with the aims and aspirations of a medical student.
Morning Leader
and found himself in London, as a young man, with the aspirations of a medical student.
City Press
He became attached to St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
Morning Leader
He became attached to St. Bartholomew's Hospital
City Press
and intended prosecuting his studies there with all the vigour which he subsequently displayed in quite another and surprising direction. He took apartments in Bartholomew Close,
Morning Leader
and, in order to pursue his studies there, he took apartments in Bartholomew-close,
City Press
in the house of a celebrated City detective named Potts, who seems to have been a first edition of Sherlock Holmes.
Morning Leader
in the house of a celebrated City detective named Potts, who seems to have been a first edition of "Sherlock Holmes."
City Press
The mind and imagination of the young medical student became diverted from the study of surgery and medicine to the fascinating problem of criminology.
Morning Leader
The mind and imagination of the young medical student were diverted from the study of surgery to the fascinating problems of criminology.
City Press
and the varied means which a quick intelligence offered for the detection of crime.
Morning Leader
No equivalent
City Press
Hence it was that while engaged as a student at St. Bartholomew's, he became imbued with the instincts of a detective, and so successful was he in that direction that he appeared in a great number of prosecutions of criminals at the City Police Courts and at the Old Bailey.
Morning Leader
He had all the instincts of a detective, and so successful was he in that direction that, while a student in "Bart's," he appeared in a great number of prosecutions of criminals at the City police-courts and the Old Bailey.
City Press
Young Sagar's ability attracted the attention of the late Sir James Fraser, who was that that time the Commissioner of City Police, and he called for a special report with respect to the many cases in which the young medical student had been engaged. The report was of so complimentary a character that the Commissioner suggested that Mr. Sagar should join the police force. In the event of his declining to do so, a handsome cheque was ready as payment for his past assistance to the police.
Morning Leader
Young Sagar's ability attracted the attention of the then Commissioner of the City Police, Sir James Fraser, who suggested that Mr. Sagar should join the police force; offering, however, a handsome cheque as payment for his past services if he declined to do so.
City Press
Mr. Sagar thereupon resolved to abandon the dull routine of the medical profession in favour of the more exciting, but less remunerative, life of a detective.
Morning Leader
Mr. Sagar at once decided to abandon the medical profession for the more exciting, if less remunerative, life of a detective.
City Press
The circumstances of his joining the police force were, therefore, peculiar, but that is not the only unusual feature associated with it, as Detective-inspector Sagar is the only officer of the City of London Police who has never donned a uniform.
Morning Leader
Mr. Sagar was said to be the only officer in the City Police who had never donned a uniform.
I assume I have convinced you - and there really can't be any doubt about it - that the Morning Leader was using the exact same Press Release as had been provided to the City Press as its source for this entire part of its report.
This makes sense of the fact that, immediately after the last sentence about Sagar being said to be the only officer in the City Police who had never donned a uniform (at which point the newspaper hadn't claimed to have got any of this directly from Sager), the Morning Leader report THEN says: 'To a Morning Leader representative Mr. Sagar related some of his experiences.' It still doesn't quote Sagar for another eleven paragraphs and only quotes him for the first time in the article when referring to Jack the Ripper ("We had good reason to suspect a certain person...."). We'll come back to that but for the moment it is instructive to compare how the Daily News deals with Sagar's early life in its own report because, in this newspaper, the story WAS said to have come directly from Sagar and is told in the first person, as if the words came from Sagar's mouth. Here is the same comparison between the City Press and the Daily News:
City Press
A Lancashire man by birth, he was educated at Whalley Grammar School,
Daily News
"I am a Lancashire man by birth," he told a representative of "The Daily News" on Saturday, "and was educated at Whalley Grammar School.
City Press
and found himself, as quite a young man, in London, with the aims and aspirations of a medical student.
Daily News
When quite a lad I came to London with the intention of studying medicine.
City Press
He became attached to St. Bartholomew's Hospital,
Daily News
To that end I became attached to St. Bart's.
City Press
and intended prosecuting his studies there with all the vigour which he subsequently displayed in quite another and surprising direction. He took apartments in Bartholomew Close, in the house of a celebrated City detective named Potts, who seems to have been a first edition of Sherlock Holmes.
Daily News
As it happened I went to lodge at the house of a detective then living in Bartholomew-close.
City Press
The mind and imagination of the young medical student became diverted from the study of surgery and medicine to the fascinating problem of criminology.
Daily News
Before long I found that the study of criminology had more fascinations for me than medicine or surgery,
City Press
and the varied means which a quick intelligence offered for the detection of crime.
Daily News
No equivalent
City Press
Hence it was that while engaged as a student at St. Bartholomew's, he became imbued with the instincts of a detective, and so successful was he in that direction that he appeared in a great number of prosecutions of criminals at the City Police Courts and at the Old Bailey.
Daily News
and as a consequence I was more often to be found in the well at the Old Bailey than in the laboratory at St. Bart's.
City Press
Young Sagar's ability attracted the attention of the late Sir James Fraser, who was that that time the Commissioner of City Police, and he called for a special report with respect to the many cases in which the young medical student had been engaged. The report was of so complimentary a character that the Commissioner suggested that Mr. Sagar should join the police force. In the event of his declining to do so, a handsome cheque was ready as payment for his past assistance to the police.
Daily News
"Sir James Fraser, then Commissioner of Police, interested himself considerably in my work, and as the result of a special report he suggested that I should join the force.
City Press
Mr. Sagar thereupon resolved to abandon the dull routine of the medical profession in favour of the more exciting, but less remunerative, life of a detective.
Daily News
That is how I came to be a detective, although I had not previously belonged to the police.
City Press
The circumstances of his joining the police force were, therefore, peculiar, but that is not the only unusual feature associated with it, as Detective-inspector Sagar is the only officer of the City of London Police who has never donned a uniform.
Daily News
In that way my position was unique, as it was also from the fact that I am the only City detective who has never been in uniform.
You should now be satisfied that the Daily News has been rather naughty. It's clear that Sagar did not say to its representative on Saturday, "I am a Lancashire man by birth" but that what has happened is that its reporter has taken the Press Release and turned it from the third person into the first person, as if Sagar had actually said it. The same with everything in the entire section of the report, slightly rewritten. This makes it very dangerous to rely on anything that is directly attributed to Sagar in this report.
It may well be that representatives from the Evening News, Morning Leader and Daily News did speak to Sagar on Saturday because they include a fair amount of stuff not included in the City Press story. The City Press might have edited out parts from the Press Release which were included by the other three as if coming directly from Sagar's mouth and this is a possibility that we can't entirely ignore. One assumes that the City Press would have faithfully reproduced what it had been given either in whole or large part but this is by no means certain.
When it comes to the Evening News, incidentally, it has a less detailed account of Sagar's early life but what it does print is clearly sourced to the Press Release.
Hence it says (and you will recognize everything below, which I'm putting into a slightly different order to way it appears in the newspaper):
A Lancashire man, and educated at a grammar school in his native county, he first saw life and London as a Bart's medical student.
It happened that in the house near Smithfield in which young Sagar took lodgings there dwelt a sergeant detective in the City Police.
The detective and the student made friends. The thrill and excitement of the former's work infected the younger man. Crime investigation became his hobby, and during his five years at St Bartholomew's Hospital he enjoyed the extraordinary experience of helping to arrest over a hundred wrong-doers.
Astonished at the young man's remarkable record, Sir James invited him to give up his idea of becoming a doctor, and in 1880 he joined the City Detective Force.
A unique circumstance is attached to Inspector Sagar’s career. So far is known, he is the only police detective in the kingdom who has never worn the familiar blue uniform.
While the City Press doesn't mention Sagar's five years at St Bartholomew's, nor the fact that Sagar arrested over a hundred criminals during that time (merely referring to 'a great number of prosecutions of criminals'), both of which pieces of information are unique to the Evening News, there can't be any doubt that all four newspapers share a common source for Sagar's earlier life, being the Press Release.
After telling us that Sagar was the only detective who had never donned a uniform, the City Press report continues as follows:
"He joined the service in January, 1880, as an ordinary constable, and, as usual, was required to undergo a month's probation. After having completed half that time, he was selected by the late Sir James Fraser to make an investigation into a particularly intricate case of forgery, in the task of unravelling which several others had tried and failed. Mr. Sagar at once responded to the call, and proceeded into the country for the purpose of securing his quarry. Fortune favoured him, and he was successful in bringing the forger to justice, a sentence of twenty years' penal servitude..."
This then exposes the Daily News as continuing to lie to its readers because it's perfectly obvious that the Press Release was the source of this part of its story, as below (all of which can be found in the above paragraph from the City Press):
"I joined in January, 1880, on the usual terms of a month's probation. Fortune appeared to favour me during this period, for I was put in charge of a peculiarly intricate case of forgery which had baffled the ingenuity of my colleagues. In the end I succeeded and I ran my man [to] earth. He was sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude."
Once again, that's surely not come from Sagar. The Daily News has blatantly re-worded the Press Release as if having come directly from Sagar.
We then have a particularly troubling passage in the Daily News because we are told that Sagar said to its representative:
"In June, 1889, I was promoted to be detective-sergeant, and the following year to be detective-inspector. There's the whole story; what more could you want?"
While I can't, of course, say for certain that the information about Sagar's promotions was lifted from the Press Release, so that the statement attributed to Sagar, 'There's the whole story; what more could you want?' is a fabrication, it is to be noted that the City Press story (and thus the Press Release) includes the following:
"In December, 1888, he was promoted to the position of sergeant, there being no vacancy on the detective staff. The title was one of an honorary character, and it was conferred by the Commissioner in recognition of special services rendered. In the following June he was appointed detective-sergeant, and in November, 1890, he was promoted to the post of detective-inspector. "
All the information that the Daily News attributed directly to Sagar is right there. It's very suspicious and, given that we know for sure that the Daily News lied in respect of Sagar's early life, it seems likely that it also lied about him saying 'There's the whole story...'
Certainly, if there were three journalists listening to Sagar on the Saturday, none of the others reported him saying this. Neither the Morning Leader nor the Evening News include this information about Sagar's early police career.
The City Press report then tells a story about how Sagar received an injury to his leg from a pick [axe] which he ran into while chasing a thief: showing a tenacity and commitment to policing which was said to have struck the Commissioner. Neither the Morning Leader nor the Daily News bother to include this story in their reports but the Evening News does refer to it and, from the way it is written, seems to have summarized it directly from the Press Release (or alternatively, of course, from the published City Press newspaper report).
The City Press report then differs from all the other three reports by telling a story of how Sagar caught some thieves in Chiswell Street. It was probably a bit too dull of a story so wasn't included by the others.
The Morning Leader, however, does provide some information not in the City Press report, and was thus presumably not in the Press Release, which it attributes directly to Sagar who was said to have 'related some of his experiences'. Thus, it refers briefly to Sagar's arrest of Anthony Rowe in connection with the Great Fingall frauds. It's the only one of the four reports to refer to this. It's also the only one of the newspapers to mention, by name, the forger William Waiter. His case would appear to have been the 'intricate case of forgery' referred to by the City Press which several other detectives had tried and failed to solve because the Morning Leader says that 'the case had been unsuccessfully handled for some time' and tells us that Waiter was sentenced to 20 years penal servitude.
While it's entirely possible that Sager personally filled in the gaps from the Press Release, telling the Morning Leader representative the name of the criminal and the fact that he was Irish by birth, I am extremely suspicious that all this information had been included in the Press Release but had simply been edited out by the City Press.
It could be exactly the same regarding a story of how Sagar and another officer disguised themselves as artisans to arrest three men in relation to some drug store robberies. This isn't included in the City Press, nor does it feature in the other two newspapers, but I remain suspicious that it comes from the original Press Release, not from speaking to Sagar.
At the same time, the Morning Leader does provide one genuine sounding quote from Sager when, referring to the fact that Sagar has never met violence from criminals, Sagar is reported as saying: 'The professional thief will not do that sort of thing, if he is caught fair. He recognises that it is part of the game that his time will come'.
It is, however, a quote which is only included in the Morning Leader. If the representatives from the Daily News and Evening News were present when he said it, they didn't think it interesting enough to include in their articles.
The Morning Leader is also the only newspaper to tell the story of how a colleague kept some pickpockets at bay by making them think his pipe was a revolver.
At this point in the story of Sagar's career, the Evening News is the only newspaper of the four to recount a couple of stories whereby Sagar was assisted by a criminal gang member who protected him from an attack by another gang member, and whereby Sagar's son was protected from attack in Dorset Street by thieves who recognized the young man as Sagar's son (and this part of the report is not to be found in the Seattle Daily Times version of the article). Yet, what is curious about these stories is that it is made clear that they are NOT attributed to Sagar in the form of direct quotes and that the Evening News plainly has another documentary source from which it is quoting verbatim. You can see this visually from the fact that the story is told in smaller font as if quoting from something:
"To this day in those secret dens of the East End, where plots are planned and crimes coolly contemplated, Inspector Sagar is known as the "Doctor." And the “Doctor” is actually held in friendly esteem by some of those marauders in the night, as the following will prove.
Late one night the inspector was passing along Bishopsgate-street – suddenly a man – one of his former captures – rushed at him from across the road. Almost as suddenly another man sprang into sight and knocked the would be assailant down. The inspector afterwards learned that his protector belonged to a Chapel-street mob, which was opposed to the gang claiming the other individual.
In Dorset Street, Spitalfields, early one morning, the inspector’s eldest son was surrounded by thieves who were about to handle him roughly, when one exclaimed, “Why, it’s the Doctor’s son”. Instead of robbing him they gave him safe conduct to a main thoroughfare. A convict who had just completed five years borrowed a sovereign of the inspector to enable him to get to his home in Wales. Next morning by first post the money was returned with a note of thanks."
As we can see, the newspaper expressly flags that it is quoting from some kind of document by saying 'as the following will prove:-' and then using a smaller font. It's clearly not a quote from Sagar because it refers to 'the inspector' in the third person. Is the document that is being quoted from the Press Release? If so, it would tell us that the City Press excluded large chunks of it from its own report because none of this features in the City Press story.
We then reach a rather interesting part of these newspaper reports, as some of Sagar's major cases are discussed. Here the three newspapers which are supposed to have interviewed Sagar do diverge quite significantly from the City Press which only gives a vague summary of the fact that Sagar was 'instrumental in bringing into the dock at the Old Bailey a notorious gang of forgers...all of them foreigners'. It's the other newspapers who give us the details of these foreigners: the Barmashes, Schmidt and the American George Johnson.
With respect to George Johnson, the Evening News gives us reason to believe that it received information about him directly from Sagar and reverts to small font to give give us what appears to be an extensive quote from the former detective himself:
"The notorious Schmidt, who figured in the last Barmash case two years ago, is held by many to be the cleverest forger in the world. "For my part," says Inspector Sagar, "I would give the palm to the American, George Johnson, who, with another man, named Phillips, was in 1890 sentenced to seven years for forging letters of credit on a well-known City firm."
He was a man with the most polished manners, always dressed in the height of fashion, and was normally to be found in the Monico, the Criterion or the St James’s Restaurant, where he was known as the “Captain”.
He would never let even his confederates know where he lived. He would mostly meet them at railway stations, and if he thought he was shadowed would ask - say at Aldersgate-street - for a ticket for Praed-street, and then get out at King’s Cross. He had only to notice a face twice when on a journey to strike off in a new direction.
We traced him at last to a house in Bacon-street, Bethnal Green. While examining the premises I came upon a ball-head imbedded in the wainscotting on the stairs’ landing. I cut through the wood immediately below the ball-head, and heard something drop on the other side of the boards. That something proved to be a pile of the most perfect imitations of Bank of England notes I have seen. Schmidt was an excellent engraver but Johnson was better still.
When Johnson came out of prison he told the police he was going to turn over and address revival meetings."
This does look like something that came from Sagar himself, with the quote including the words 'For my part...' and then continuing into the smaller font, with the story told in the first person.
It is, however, very instructive to closely compare the quote attributed to Sagar in the Evening News about George Johnson with a similar but not identical quote in the Daily News. For in the Daily News we find:
"Well, Schmidt was very clever, but the smartest man I ever knew at that game was an American named Johnson, who, together with a man named Phillips, was awarded seven years for forging letters of credit on a City firm. Johnson was most polished in his manners, and always dressed in the height of fashion. He spent most of his time in swell West-End restaurants, and was generally known as the "Captain." He would never let even his best friends know where he lived, and would dodge in and out of stations on the Underground if he found that he was being watched.
'Well, Schmidt was very clever, but the smartest man I ever knew at that game was an American named Johnson, who, together with a man named Phillips, was awarded seven years for forging letters of credit on a City firm. Johnson was most polished in his manners, and always dressed in the height of fashion. He spent most of his time in swell West-End restaurants, and was generally known as the "Captain." He would never let even his best friends know where he lived, and would dodge in and out of stations on the Underground if he found that he was being watched.
"One day we tracked him down at a house in in Bethnal Green. Whilst examining the premises I came across the head of a wire nail which had been driven into the partition on the stair landing. I had almost cut away the wood underneath the nail when I heard something drop on the other side. This I afterwards found was a bundle of the finest imitations of Bank of England notes I have ever seen."'
This is all supposed to have been said by Sagar to the Daily News representative but to me it looks like the same quote which appears in the Evening News, re-worded. I mean, look at what we've got:
Evening News
The notorious Schmidt, who figured in the last Barmash case two years ago, is held by many to be the cleverest forger in the world.
Daily News
Well, Schmidt was very clever,
Evening News
For my part," says Inspector Sagar, "I would give the palm to the American, George Johnson,
Daily News
but the smartest man I ever knew at that game was an American named Johnson,
Evening News
who, with another man, named Phillips, was in 1890 sentenced to seven years for forging letters of credit on a well-known City firm."
Daily News
who, together with a man named Phillips, was awarded seven years for forging letters of credit on a City firm.
Evening News
He was a man with the most polished manners, always dressed in the height of fashion,
Daily News
Johnson was most polished in his manners, and always dressed in the height of fashion.
Evening News
and was normally to be found in the Monico, the Criterion or the St James’s Restaurant, where he was known as the “Captain”.
Daily News
He spent most of his time in swell West-End restaurants, and was generally known as the "Captain."
Evening News
He would never let even his confederates know where he lived. He would mostly meet them at railway stations, and if he thought he was shadowed would ask - say at Aldersgate-street - for a ticket for Praed-street, and then get out at King’s Cross. He had only to notice a face twice when on a journey to strike off in a new direction.
Daily News
He would never let even his best friends know where he lived, and would dodge in and out of stations on the Underground if he found that he was being watched.
Evening News
We traced him at last to a house in Bacon-street, Bethnal Green.
Daily News
"One day we tracked him down at a house in in Bethnal Green.
Evening News
While examining the premises I came upon a ball-head imbedded in the wainscotting on the stairs’ landing.
Daily News
Whilst examining the premises I came across the head of a wire nail which had been driven into the partition on the stair landing.
Evening News
I cut through the wood immediately below the ball-head, and heard something drop on the other side of the boards.
Daily News
I had almost cut away the wood underneath the nail when I heard something drop on the other side.
Evening News
That something proved to be a pile of the most perfect imitations of Bank of England notes I have seen.
Daily News
This I afterwards found was a bundle of the finest imitations of Bank of England notes I have ever seen."'
I don't know about you but I don't think for one second that this is the result of two separate interviews with Sagar. If that's the case, and there was just one interview with three reporters present, only one of the above can be an accurate reflection of what Sagar actually said. But the fact that one is so different from the other (eg. with 'ball head' replaced by 'head of a wire nail' and 'wainscotting' replaced by 'partition'), yet at the same time so similar, suggests (if we can rule out the notion that Monday's Daily News simply plagiarised from Saturday's Evening News) that both newspapers were taking the entire story from the Press Release and putting it into the first person as if Sagar was telling the story. This would again have to mean that the report in the City Press was a heavily edited version of a much longer Press Release but that doesn't seem to be impossible.
Some English forgers, the Devonports, are also mentioned in the newspaper reports, and it is likely that the newspapers added their own knowledge of this case, which had been widely reported three years earlier, because the Morning Leader refers to the forgers involvement in 'flash fivers' while the Evening News calls them 'forged fivers' , suggesting to me the addition of their own information to flesh out the story. The Evening News also mentions something unique to itself, namely that one of the group of forgers was paralyzed and was sentenced at the Old Bailey while lying on an ambulance, which might have been from the newspaper's own knowledge.
The Evening News and Morning Leader (but not the City Press and Daily News) also refer to Sagar's involvement in 'the Great Pearl Robbery case' with the Evening News saying that Sagar 'brought the beautiful Mrs. Osborne from Dover to the Guildhall dock' and the Morning Leader contenting itself by saying that Sagar 'arrested Mrs. Osborne at Dover'.
The City Press and the Morning Leader, however, but not the Evening News and Daily News, both tell of the fact that Sagar "personally conducted" a million pounds in bullion to the Bank of France in Paris. The fact that they both put the words "personally conducted" in quotation marks tells us that this is not a report of what someone has said but that they were both copying from the Press Release which, for some reason, also had those words in quotes.
"We now come on to the Jack the Ripper part of the story. The Press Release had clearly begun the subject by stating (as we find in the City Press) that Sagar's:
professional association with the terrible atrocities which were perpetrated some years ago in the East End by the so-styled "Jack-the Ripper" was a very close one. Indeed, Mr. Sagar knows as much about those crimes, which terrified the Metropolis, as any detective in London."
and that he:
"was deputed to represent the City police force in conference with the detective heads of the Metropolitan force nightly at Leman Street Police Station during the period covered by those ghastly murders."
Likewise, the Evening News tells us that:
"Inspector Sagar was the chief officer appointed to confer with the metropolitan police in the search for the terrible Whitechapel murderer. "
The Morning Leader says:
"Mr. Sagar represented the City Police at the nightly meetings which took place at Leman-st., Whitechapel, to consider what should be done to find the murderer.
The Daily News makes no mention of these meetings."
But the Morning Leader has some additional information, saying that, while on the hunt for Jack the Ripper, Sagar disguised himself as a labourer and 'was actually tracked himself by two police officers, who thought they had reason to regard him as a suspicious character.' This incident isn't mention by the City Press or the Daily News but the Evening News (in a passage omitted from the Seattle Daily Times version) says:
"One night Mr. Sagar was out looking for “Jack the Ripper.” He had dressed himself in pea-jacket, corduroy trousers, and a cap with ear-flaps. So well was he disguised that for two hours he was followed through East End courts and alleys by a couple of his own detectives, until they were astonished to see him enter the Old Jewry."
As it contains more detail, the Evening News seems to have been reporting the full version of this story, with the Morning Leader merely summarizing it.
Then the Morning Leader reveals something Sagar is supposed to have said about the Ripper:
"Asked about these mysterious crimes, Mr. Sagar said, despite the many stories which are told, the police never had any proof who committed them."
That's not mentioned by any of other newspapers but the Daily News has a unique question and answer moment with Sagar being asked what his most sensational case was and responding:
'Well I can hardly say. Possibly that series of tragedies which came to be known as the 'Jack the Ripper' murders'.
That in itself is kind of odd because we know that the Press Release had already stated that Sagar's professional association with 'the self-styled "Jack the Ripper"' was a very close one and that Sagar knew as much of those crimes, 'which terrified the Metropolis' as any detective in London. Strange then that Sagar hesitated when supposedly asked, in person, to describe his most sensational case, with the comment that he could hardly say.
What is then particularly interesting is that all three newspapers which purport to have interviewed Sagar tell a story not included in the City Press report about the Ripper coming close to capture by a police constable who saw a man of Jewish appearance leaving Mitre Square. Both the Evening News and Daily News quote Sagar directly while the Morning Leader summarizes his words. Thus:
Evening News
"We believe," he said, "that he came nearest to being captured after the Mitre-square murder in which the woman Kelly was the victim. She had been detained in Bishopsgate Police Station until 1 a.m. At 1:45 a. m. she was dead. A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across Kelly’s body.
He blew his whistle, and set the other officers who rushed up in pursuit, the only thing to guide them being the sound of retreating footsteps. The sounds were followed to King's Block in the model dwellings in Stoney-lane, but the search got no further. On the wall was found scrawled in chalk, 'The Jews shall not be blamed for this.'"
Daily News
"As you know, the perpetrator of these outrages was never brought to justice, but I believe he came the nearest to being captured after the murder of the woman Kelly in Mitre-square. A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body. He blew his whistle, and other officers running up, they set off in pursuit of the man who had just left. The officers were wearing indiarubber boots, and the retreating footsteps of a man could be clearly heard. The sounds were followed to King's-block in the model dwellings in Stoney-lane, but we did not see the man again that night."
Morning Leader
"He believed the police were nearer to catching the "Ripper" on the occasion of the Mitre-st. murder than on any other. The woman Kelly, who was the victim, left Bishopsgate Police-station at 1 a.m. Three-quarters of an hour later she was found dead, and just before her body was discovered a police-constable met a man of Jewish appearance hurrying out of the court. "
We can see that while all three versions describe the suspect as a man of Jewish appearance, one says that he was "well-known", another that he was "well dressed" (while the third includes neither description). Unless Sagar went through the same story in almost word-for-word fashion with two different reporters at different times on the same day, telling one that the man was well known, the other that he was well dressed, it would seem that at least one of the descriptions can't be correct and can, presumably only be explained by the reporter's handwriting being misread by the newspapers sub-editors (or some such mistake). On the basis that only one can be correct, which was it? They carry rather different meanings. Well-known could either be famous in the area or well known to the police, the latter of which is something rather different. Well dressed obviously implies someone with money. But it's impossible at this distance to know what Sagar actually said.
The papers all then move on to the discovery of the apron following the Mitre Square murder and it is the City Press, working from the Press Release, which has the most detail about this:
There was a peculiar incident in connection with those tragedies which may have been forgotten. The apron belonging to the woman who was murdered in Mitre Square was thrown under a staircase in a common lodging house in Dorset Street, and someone - presumably the murderer - had written on the wall above it, "The Jewes are not the people that will be blamed for nothing." A police officer engaged in the case, fearing that the writing might lead to an onslaught upon the Jews in the neighbourhood, rubbed the writing from the wall, and all record of the implied accusation was lost; but the fact that such an ambiguous message was left is recorded among the archives at the Guildhall.
This is mentioned in the three other newspapers in much shortened form but the really curious thing is that while the Daily News precisely mirrors the version of the writing on the wall in the City Press, with the close-to-correct 'The Jewes are not the people that will not be blamed for nothing', we find that the Evening News and the Morning Leader both transcribe this as something totally different, with a different (correct) spelling of 'Jewes', namely:
'The Jews shall not be blamed for this'.
From the fact that the City Press was reporting from a press release, we can be sure that they didn't transcribe something that Sagar had said, and the Daily News was obviously also relying on that Press Release. So, unless Sagar did mention the writing on the wall while speaking to the reporters (but got it wrong), there must be some connection between the Evening News report and the report in the Morning Leader. We may even have to consider whether they were both written by the same person but in different ways for different newspapers. If, as the Daily News tells us, Sagar was speaking on the Saturday about his retirement, the report in the Evening News would have had to have been written quite fast to get it into that day's paper, while there would have been more time to polish the story for Monday's Morning Leader.
Indeed, if we go back to the way the Evening News report spoke of the Devenports being of 'forged fivers' fame, we find that the Morning Leader report seems to improve on that by referring to 'the medium of "flash fivers"'. Flash fivers had been all the rage in the 1902 newspapers:
'Forged fivers' while meaning the same thing, and also being a headline from 1902, isn't quite as snappy. Hence why I call it an improvement.
That said, there's no obvious similarity for the most part between the Evening News and Morning Leader stories which would lead one to conclude that they must have been written by the same person but we will see that there is one more possible indication.
We now come to the most critical part of the story. The identification of a possible suspect. As to this, it is quite striking to find that what appears to have been written in the prepared Press Release was no more than this:
The police realised, as also did the public, that the crimes were those of a madman, and suspicion fell upon a man, who, without doubt, was the murderer. Identification being impossible, he could not be charged. He was, however, placed in a lunatic asylum, and the series of atrocities came to an end.
On its own, this could certainly be Kosminski because it matches closely with the Anderson/MM/Swanson suspect.
The Daily News, once again, while providing a direct quote from Sagar, seems to mirror the press release because Sagar's words are:
'I feel sure we knew the man, but we could prove nothing. Eventually we got him incarcerated in a lunatic asylum, and the series of murders came to an end'.
Remember that we've already caught the Daily News lying about Sagar's words and to me this looks like another possible fabricated quote based on the Press Release.
Then we find once more a strange connection between the Evening News and the Morning Leader which both, alone, tell us that the suspect worked in Butcher's Row. But there are no less than FIVE significant differences between the two newspapers in this respect.
The first significant difference is that the Morning Leader provides a direct quote from Sagar whereas the Evening News only summarizes what is, remarkably, said to be the view not of Sagar, but of the City Police.
The Morning Leader reports Sagar as saying:
"We had good reason to suspect a certain man who worked in 'Butcher's-row,' Aldgate," he said, "and we watched him carefully. There was no doubt that this man was insane, and after a time his friends thought it advisable to have him removed to a private asylum. After he was removed there were no more Ripper atrocities."
When it comes to the Evening News, however, which gives similar information, not only is it not in the form of a quote by Sagar, but it's printed in such a way to make clear that it's not a quote. Look at this:
After an extended quote of Sagar in small font, wrapped in quotation marks, about how Sagar believed the Ripper was nearly caught after the Mitre Square murder, the report goes back into normal font with a mere statement in the passive tense that:
'The theory of the City police is that "Jack the Ripper" was a butcher, who worked in "Butcher's-row," Aldgate, and was partly insane. It is believed that he made his way to Australia and there died. Only then is Sagar quoted as saying that, 'The police are satisfied as to the identity of the man, but what became of him we don't know', which somehow seems to contradict the police's belief that he went to Australia.'
We can see that the other four key differences are:
1. The Morning Leader makes no mention of Sagar saying that Jack the Ripper was a butcher, only that he worked in Butcher's Row, whereas the Evening News says that the City police theory was that he was a butcher.
2. The Morning Leader says that the suspect was insane and and committed by friends to a private asylum whereas the Evening News makes no mention of him going to an asylum and says that he was only 'partly insane'.
3. The Evening News says that he went to Australia, whereas there is no mention of this in the Morning Leader (or elsewhere)
4. The Evening News says that the suspect died, but this isn't indicated in the Morning Leader (and its claim is then somewhat contradicted in its own story, by Sagar saying that the police didn't know what had happened to him).
Something is obviously very wrong here. One could just about accept that reasons of space or editing meant that the Morning Leader didn't include the belief that the Ripper was a butcher and that he was dead. But the Ripper either ended up in an asylum or in Australia. It's one or the other. Those two versions are entirely contradictory.
Given everything that we know about this supposed "interview" with Sagar, and the fact that none of this can be found in the Press Release and isn't mentioned in the Daily News story, I can't help thinking that this entire section about the Butcher's Row suspect needs to be treated with a great deal of caution. One simply doesn't know if the Evening News and Morning Leader were supplementing the story about Sagar's career with information about Jack the Ripper from other sources. The newspapers don't seem to have been beyond putting words into Sagar's mouth.
CONCLUSION
A lot of things about the Sagar "interview" are unclear and uncertain but there is one hard fact. This is that the City Press representative did not interview Sagar on Saturday (which is when the Daily News says he was interviewed by their representative). That would have been literally impossible. In fact, it seems entirely clear that the City Press did not interview Sagar at all, but based its report on some form of what I have described as a Press Release received during the week, prior to publication of the newspaper late on Friday night/early hours of Saturday morning.
As for the other three newspapers, it's hard to deny that they all must have made some use of the same Press Release, although, of course, by Saturday morning all of them could have been in possession of a copy of the City Press newspaper and plagiarised that report as source material. Given, however, that these papers were evidently provided with additional material either by the City of London Police or by Sagar himself, the plagiarism theory doesn't make sense. But it seems very unlikely that Sagar would have repeated verbatim during an interview what was stated in the Press Release, especially given the way the Morning Leader and Evening News both fail to report as quotes from Sagar those parts of his early life which match the City Press report.
Everything else is hard to fathom. Was Sagar interviewed on the Saturday by three reporters (or by two) or was it just one journalist who then wrote the story up in three different ways for three different newspapers in order to earn himself three fees? If by three journalists (or by two), was Sagar interviewed separately by each one, repeating what was essentially the same story verbatim to each of them, or did they all do one joint interview?
Noting the strange document that the Evening News reporter alone appears to have quoted from about a couple of incidents in Sagar's career involving threats against him and his son, does this mean that the Press Release given to the City Press was supplemented by additional material which was given to the other reporters on Saturday? Or was the Press Release a much longer document, with additional information included that was used by the other newspapers but omitted by the City Press?
Obviously I can't answer these questions but what I can say is that the Evening News report - which would have had to have been prepared very quickly if there was an interview on Saturday morning in order to get it into its paper which was printed early on Saturday afternoon - is very much an outlier. It is the only one of the four reports which tells us that the Jewish suspect was a well dressed butcher who ended up in Australia. For that reason, I think it needs to be treated with extreme caution. But it's the one report which is used to suggest that Sagar's suspect wasn't Kosminski. I think it's a mistake to use that report to form this conclusion.
We can see that the original and official story, which was presumably produced by the City of London Police, rather than by Sagar himself, was no more than that the police suspected an insane man who they could not charge because they didn't have enough evidence, and that when this man was placed in an asylum there were no more murders. That's it. And that's what the Daily News story, which expressly states that their representative spoke to Sagar on the Saturday, also tells us.
It's only the reports in the Evening News on Saturday and the Morning Leader on Monday which introduce Butcher's Row into the story. When the Evening News published that piece of information on Saturday, it appears to have been sourced to the City Police rather than directly to Sagar but, on the Monday, it was reported as a direct quote from Sagar but one which totally omitted the claim that the suspect was a butcher (who ended up in Australia) and which added in the claim that he was committed to a (private) asylum.
Given the inevitable time pressure of filing a report for a Saturday evening newspaper, presumably a handwritten one (from shorthand?), and how easy it would have been to assume that a man who worked in Butcher's Row was a butcher, it hardly seems beyond the bounds of possibility that the claim that the suspect was a butcher was an erroneous interpolation. One would also think that the Jewish suspect was probably said to have been "well known" (to the police) rather than well dressed but you can take your pick. Given that one report says, 'A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court' while the other says 'A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance of Jewish appearance coming out of the court...' they must surely have been attempting to report the exact same sentence (either from a source document or from what Sagar said) so that one of them must contain an error. I personally suspect that it's the later report (i.e. the one published on the Monday) which is more likely to have been correct due to less time pressure to prepare the story for publication.
The short point is that I really don't think the Sagar reports can possibly be used to eliminate or discount Kosminski as the City of London Police suspect.
LORD ORSAM
14 April 2023
Re-published 13 June 2026






Bumbling About
Dr Hopper is described on two occasions in the diary as 'a bumbling buffoon'. It transpires, after an astute Casebook Forum poster called 'The Baron' pointed it out, that the concept of someone being described as a bumbling [anything] in a derogatory sense is exclusively twentieth century.
One simply doesn't seem to find mentions of a 'bumbling fool' or 'bumbling idiot' in the nineteenth century, nor 'bumbling buffoon'.
The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that an 1886 book by Eliza Lynn Linton, a writer from the North Country, entitled Paston Carew, Millionaire and Miser, contains a reference to a rector's son as 'a big bumbling young fellow' (being the first nineteenth century example of this expression provided by the dictionary) but that doesn't sound terribly insulting and is surely not the same as calling someone a bumbling fool or idiot. The full quote from the book is that the guy in question, named Frank Harcourt, is 'a big bumbling young fellow with lint-white hair, a skin that tanned red, and as awkward as a mastiff puppy or nestling cuckoo'. To me that gives the impression of clumsiness or awkwardness, and indeed we see the expression 'as awkward as a mastiff puppy' as opposed to bungling incompetence.
Linton had actually used the expression 'bumbling fellow' in a novel called Lizzie Lorton of Greyrigg a full twenty years earlier in similar fashion to describe a parson. In the same book, another character looked at his own 'trim, slight, well-knit figure' and said that he was 'by no means of the "bumbling" order' which doesn't seem to make much sense if 'bumbling' was being used as we would understand it today. It is true, however, that 'bumbling' was a North Country dialect word for 'bungling', and Linton was from the North Country, so perhaps she did mean it in that way.
According to the online etymology dictionary, 'bumbling' only came to mean 'confused, blundering, awkward' in 1886 and that is presumably on the basis of Linton's use of the word in her book of that year. As I've mentioned, however, it was a North Country dialect word for some years prior to this (and it was a Scottish dialect word with the same meaning, but with a different spelling). Nevertheless, it would appear to be the case that 'bumbling' wasn't a word actually used to mean 'blundering' or 'incompetent' in the English language, as generally spoken, during the nineteenth century. It doesn't appear in a number of dictionaries of the period (including in the early twentieth century) and, although it is given that meaning in one dictionary published in 1888, it is said to have been obsolete (other than for certain regional dialects), and the evidence of actual usage suggests that it was generally regarded as such.
I set out at the end of this article what I've discovered about the etymology of 'blundering' including the evidence that it was North Country (and Scottish) dialect. But a historical discussion in the abstract only takes us so far. In order to test the theory that 'bumbling' did not exist as a word in the English language at the relevant time, other than in respect of the sound of a bumble bee, I entered (in September 2020) as many expressions relating to 'bumbling' as I could think of into three databases which all go back to the eighteenth century (the British Newspaper Archive, The Times Digital Archive and Google Books) including as many occupations I could think of, because to put blundering before an occupation is to be derogatory of it, or rather of that person. The results were absolutely startling. Everything that I entered came back as twentieth century without exception. Although we get a 'bumbling fool' from a 1909 book ('Why, God stiffen it you bumbling fool!') this would seem to be the absolute earliest of such usage. Here is the list of search terms I entered with their earliest date from the three databases in parentheses:
Bumbling fool (1909)
Bumbling old [something] (1931) - we do find 'dear rumbling, bumbling old automobiles' in a 1903 book but I think that the 'bumbling' there is probably related to the humming of the engine, like a bumble bee or bittern, which is another definition of the word.
Bumbling mayor (1933)
Bumbling sheriff (1933)
Bumbling Englishman (1935)
Bumbling minister (1936)
Bumbling politician (1937)
Bumbling colonel (1938)
Bumbling man (1938) - there is a 1926 reference to a high priest as 'a genial, bumbling man with a blue twinkle in his eye' but I'm not convinced that the meaning of 'bumbling' here is related to bungling incompetence due to the context.
Bumbling American (1938)
Bumbling police (1941)
Bumbling doctor (1943)
Bumbling admiral (1945)
Bumbling detective (1949)
Bumbling scientist (1949)
Bumbling professor (1950)
Bumbling barrister (1950)
Bumbling sidekick (1951)
Bumbling person (1951)
Bumbling sergeant (1952)
Bumbling friend (1953)
Bumbling major (1953)
Bumbling vicar (1953)
Bumbling captain (1953)
Bumbling idiot (1954) - although the O.E.D. gives an example from 1948 in a Texas newspaper being: 'a bumbling idiot of a policeman'.
Bumbling villain (1954)
Bumbling policeman (1954)
Bumbling engineer (1954)
Bumbling deputy (1957)
Bumbling lawyer (1958)
Bumbling inspector (1960)
Bumbling novice (1960)
Bumbling clown (1961)
Bumbling solicitor (1961)
Bumbling incompetent (1961)
Bumbling simpleton (1962)
Bumbling nurse (1963)
Bumbling teacher (1963)
Bumbling aristocrat (1964)
Bumbling assistant (1966)
Bumbling accountant (1966)
Bumbling half-wit (1967)
Bumbling enemy (1967)
Bumbling lieutenant (1967)
Bumbling dentist (1969)
Bumbling artist (1969)
Bumbling manager (1969)
Bumbling chaplain (1970)
Bumbling constable (1971)
Bumbling actor (1972) - although in a 1916 autobiography the author describes himself as having been 'a bumbling actor bee buzzing around' which must be related to the bumbling of a bee.
Bumbling associate (1972)
Bumbling criminal (1974) - although there is a 1946 reference to 'bumbling criminal incompetence' but 1974 is the first reference to a person as a bumbling criminal.
Bumbling MP (1975)
Bumbling twit (1980)
Bumbling woman (1983) - there is a 1904 result from Harper's magazine (reader's letter) which says that, 'men should be aware of what I call the “bumbling” woman – the respectable woman past her youth, who has never had her share of attention and appreciation, and who by appealing for sympathy or advice, or by cultivating his tastes and by the most subtle arts of flattery, almost imperceptibly draws a man into confidential relations, and sometimes makes him think he loves her. Even if the “bumbling” woman does not go so far, the man’s wife sees what is going on; she knows her women friends see it, and she is miserable with a misery she is almost powerless to combat. There should be a special place of torment prepared for the woman who “bumbles” about a married man.' Clearly, ‘bumble’ here isn’t the same as the modern understanding and the fact that the writer of the letter chose the phrase ‘bumbling women’ with this definition shows to me that the word ‘bumbling’ was not in common use (in America) at the time to describe an incompetent person.
Anyone can play this game and enter as many other 'bumbling' occupations or expressions as you can think of. I'm confident they will ALL come back from the twentieth century. I also tested a selection on newspapers.com and a few other databases, such as Gale, with the same results.
Update July 2024: I refreshed the above searches, and carried out new searches on archive.org, from which I managed to push some back by a few years (mainly from American sources) so that Bumbling old [something] now goes back to 1912 ("bumbling old man"), Bumbling sergeant, Bumbling colonel, Bumbling Clown to 1936, Bumbling friend, Bumbling official(s), Bumbling half-wit to 1938, Bumbling amateur, Bumbling minister(s), to 1939, Bumbling Major, Bumbling idiot, Bumbling lawyer to 1940, Bumbling assistant to 1941, Bumbling captain to 1946, Bumbling lieutenant (actually Bumbling lieutenant-governor) to 1947, Bumbling manager to 1948, Bumbling constable to 1949, Bumbling inspector to 1950, Bumbling teacher, Bumbling artist to 1951, Bumbling policeman, Bumbling lawyer to 1953, Bumbling simpleton to 1957, Bumbling woman to 1958, Bumbling enemy to 1959, Bumbling chaplain to 1961, Bumbling actor to 1966, Bumbling chaplain to 1969 and Bumbling criminal to 1974.
Now that's one thing. But what was really amazing was what happened when I entered those same expressions into the British Newspaper Archive except with the word 'bumbling' replaced by 'blundering' or 'bungling' . I found that almost without exception they came back with plenty of examples from the nineteenth century! Where I couldn't find a single 'bumbling' expression from that century for love nor money, now I was overwhelmed by them when using 'blundering' or 'bungling'. In fact, the only ones I couldn't find in the nineteenth century from the BNA for 'blundering' were: sidekick, chaplain, vicar twit and halfwit (although we do find 'blundering, halfwitted people' in 1859) and, for 'bungling': sidekick, major, deputy, mayor, halfwit, American, chaplain and aristocrat. I suspect I could have found nineteenth century examples for at least some of these in Google Books but I didn't bother, for there was no need.
The earliest BNA result for 'blundering idiot' was 1823 and for 'bungling idiot' was 1841. For 'blundering fool' this went back to 1808 and 'bungling fool' went back to 1836. I checked these two expressions in Google Books and not only were there plenty of examples but they went back to 1828 for 'blundering idiot' and 1810 for 'blundering fool' and 1870 for 'blundering idiot' and 1838 for 'blundering fool'.
I won't list them all from the BNA but it's worth noting that some of them went back to the eighteenth century such as 'bungling politician' (1740), 'bungling engineer' (1750) and 'bungling admiral' (1756) while we also have 'blundering mayor' (1778) and 'blundering politician' (1764). A large number of the rest of the expressions from the nineteenth century could be found in the early part of the century such as 'blundering lawyer' (1802), 'blundering friend' (1807), 'blundering person' (1818), 'bungling lawyer' (1818), 'bungling dentist' (1823), 'bungling doctor' (1825) 'blundering clown' (1825) and 'blundering aristocrat' (1828). You can try it yourself. The difference between these results and the results for 'bumbling' people is absolutely extraordinary and not only supports but, in my opinion, proves the theory I set out at the start.
You can even do the same with 'blustering' as we find the earliest mention of 'blustering idiot' being 1835 in the BNA and 1862 in Google Books. For 'blustering fool', this can be found in 1829 in the BNA and 1808 in Google books.
In terms of buffoons, we find 'blustering buffoon' from 1826 in the BNA and 1848 in Google Books. There seems to be a mention of a 'blundering buffoon' in the BNA from 1818 and in Google Books from 1833. For 'bungling buffoon' we have an example for 1854 in Google Books and the only real anomaly is that the BNA's first example is not until 1936.
But that's really by the by. People simply did not use the word 'bumbling' in the nineteenth century to describe someone as blundering or incompetent. It just wasn't in general usage. While it was used by one writer in 1909, it evidently took time to filter its way into the general English language. It wasn't a particularly necessary word with both 'blundering' and 'bungling' (and, of course, also 'blustering') already available. We can see that it picked up in popularity during the 1930s before coming into general use in the 1940s and 1950s which is exactly when we find the first use of 'bumbling buffoon'.
Perhaps the most interesting discovery of my searches was in respect of Dogberry, a constable in Shakespeare's 'Much Ado About Nothing'. Most modern books refer to him as 'the bumbling Dogberry' and Google books gives us 1954 as the earliest appearance of this expression. However, while we don't find any such description in the nineteenth century, the BNA gives us a result from 1842 for 'blundering Dogberry' while the notes to the play from 1806 in Google Books also give us 'The blundering Dogberry'. It's a good example of how the word 'bumbling' came to replace 'blundering' as a word of choice during the twentieth century, having not been available to writers during the nineteenth century.
On the basis of the results of my searches, I think The Baron must be right when he said, 'I will take this phrase Bumbling Buffoon any day in the week as a proof that the Diary is a fake'. Diary Defenders who wish to show that the diary was created during the nineteenth century really do need to provide an example of someone in that century referring to a bumbling buffoon or similar.
And they also need to find an example of 'one off instance' or similar but I'm afraid that will be impossible.
In response to the 'bumbling buffoon' discovery, Caroline Morris-Brown (in #107 of the google ngrams thread on Casebook) was reduced to suggesting that a nineteenth century hoaxer of the diary possibly just happened to invent the expression 'bumbling buffoon' about sixty years before anyone else used it by comparing Hopper (who he thought of as a buffoon) to a bee and imagined him bumbling around, thus creating his own expression of 'bumbling buffoon'. It is, of course, a ludicrous suggestion to anyone who gives it any thought and who compares it to actual usage of the expression, or rather non-usage, in the nineteenth century.
I should just add that anyone who wishes to respond to this article or to do searches of their own. Please don't make a muppet of yourself by confusing 'humbling' or 'tumbling' with 'bumbling' in any search results and check the date of any result in Google Books is correct (which you can usually do by searching the word 'copyright' to give you the correct date of publication) and also beware of the Laredo Times on newspapers.com which produces false results said to be from the 1890s of twentieth century editions.
As an aside, we may note that popularity of the bumbling buffoon in cinema and on TV in the UK in the post-war period has been huge.
It starts, I think, with Nigel Bruce's portrayal of Dr Watson opposite Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes in a series of films produced between 1939 and 1946. He may not have been described as a bumbling buffoon during that period (bearing in mind that the earliest known example found in print so far is from 1948) but, when he died in 1953, Time magazine referred to him as being 'best known for his characterizations of Sherlock Holmes's bumbling friend, Dr Watson'. Leslie Halliwell's 1977 'The Filmgoer's Companion' says that he was 'Hollywood's most bumbling import from Britain' who 'usually played well-meaning upper class buffoons' while The Sherlock Holmes Journal published in 1982 says of Bruce that he 'did play him as the bumbling buffoon, and yet made a success of it'. Similarly the Times of 28 July 1984 says of Bruce that he 'played Watson as a rather dim, bumbling buffoon'. So whether or not Bruce's Watson was commonly referred to as a bumbling buffoon in the 1940s (or 1950s, 1960s or 1970s) he certainly was in the 1980s!
Another personification of the bumbling buffoon was, of course, Peter Sellars as Inspector Clouseau although you will usually find reference to him as a 'bumbling detective' or 'bumbling inspector'. The Times of 28 January 1965, for example, referred to the 'bumbling Inspector Clouseau'. The Liverpool Echo of 12 February 1965 likewise called him 'the bumbling Inspector Clouseau of the Paris Surete'. In the 1975 Film Review Digest Annual, Clouseau is said to be 'too entirely the buffoon'. The 1980 TV Guide refers to 'the immortal Inspector Clouseau, master bumbler and buffoon'. In the Times of 26 February 1985 he is described as 'the bumbling French detective'. On 25 April 1986, the Times said of the FBI agent, Ronald Miller, charged with passing secret documents to the Russians, that his defence team 'portrayed him as a bumbling buffoon, "an overweight Inspector Clouseau who took on Bondian fantasies in order to salvage his reputation"'. This is another example of how common the expression of bumbling buffoon was in the 1980s.
Another character in the 1980s described as a 'bumbling buffoon' was Ade Edmonson's Guy Fuddle in the 1985 BBC TV comedy series 'Happy Families' (e.g. Hammersmith and Shepherd's Bush Gazette of 11 October 1985, Reading Evening Post of 24 October 1985 and Derby Daily Telegraph of 7 June 1988).
So it was a perfectly common, well known and well understood expression in the UK during the 1980s (but most certainly NOT in the 1880s!!!). It's funny, though, because when I first posted about 'one off instance' back in 2016, Caroline Morris-Brown made exactly the same ludicrous suggestion that it wasn't a common expression during the 1980s! She is absolutely terrified of anything linking the diary to the Barretts!! It's extraordinary, and to avoid the authorship of the diary pointing to the Barretts through the use of expressions which were very common in the 1980s, such as 'one off instance' and 'bumbling buffoon', she tries to twist and deny reality to pretend they were obscure phrases that Mike and Anne wouldn't have heard of.
******
I said earlier that I would set out the detailed etymology of the word 'bumbling'.
The O.E.D. defines a ‘bumbling’ person as one who moves in an awkward or confused manner often prone to making careless mistakes being ineffectual and/or incompetent. But when did that meaning really start to be recognised by the public?
The O.E.D. takes the word 'bumbling' back to 1533. Thomas More wrote:
‘Tyndall dydde yet at lastwyse make some bumlying aboute a colour for the matter with a long processe of historicall faith and feelynge faith’.
The meaning isn't entirely clear but whatever it means it's clear that Tindall made some bumbling. He wasn't being described as a bumbling person.
Another 1533 quote from Thomas More is:
'The thynge where about he hath bombled all this whyle'.
I don't know why there's a different spelling by the same person in the same year but someone has evidently bumbled about something. Again, they are not themselves bumbling.
Another sixteenth century example is from 1540: 'Ye fare lyke hym that tumble For nought ye do but bumble'.
Again the meaning isn't clear but it's a case of bumbling being done, not someone being bumbling.
Then we have an example from 1660 but that's said to be in respect of making reference to confused or incompetent exegesis of scripture. Hence: ‘many bumbling Volumes, larger than the Bible itself being written’. Again, this is very different to the concept of an incompetent or bumbling person.
In 1713, Henry Carey wrote a poem entitled 'The Disparity of Youth and Age' as follows:
What should a merry, airy, lively, youthful, blooming lass
Do with a mumbling, bumbling, grumbling, stumbling, fumbling ass?
Youth and age but ill agree
Such a man's no match for me;
Coughing, spitting,
Thwarting, twitting,
Ever teasing,
Never pleasing;
Hang his money, hang his bags,
Give me youth, content and rags.
If, as seems to be the case (although I'm guessing somewhat), Carey was referring to a young woman in a relationship with an older man (who was the 'ass') it's possible that one could strip this down and say that Carey is here referring to a man as 'a bumbling ass' and this could thus be said to have been a derogatory use of 'bumbling'.
The problem, as I see it, is that it's not entirely clear what Carey means by 'bumbling'. There was another meaning of the word going back to Chaucer in the fifteenth century in which a bittern 'bombleth in the myre' and was the booming sound made by the bittern. Also in the fifteenth century we find reference to 'The bomelying of the bees' and, in 1556, in reference to flies, 'Much bumbling among them all there was'. In 1609, Ravenscroft wrote. 'We shall have good companie. With humbling and bumbling and much melody. When ended this wedding day the Bee he tooke his flye away'. In 1689, Hogarth wrote, 'To bumble, or humble like Bees' while in 1693 there is an example of 'Bumling of bees'. Bumbling thus also became known as the sound made by a bee. So while Carey might have been referring to an 'ass' who moved or behaved in an awkward or confused manner, he might also have been talking about the mumbling, bumbling, grumbling sounds made by the man. Even if that's wrong, and the O.E.D. certainly seems to think he was referring to awkwardness, it seems to have been an isolated use of the word 'bumbling' in a vaguely derogatory way about an individual.
In 1808, Jamieson's Dictionary of the Scottish Language includes the word 'Bummil', 'Bummle' or 'Bombell' to mean 'a drone, an idle fellow'. It also includes 'To Bummil' which is to bungle or blunder while a 'Bummeler' or 'Bumler' was defined as a 'blundering fellow'. Despite the examples that we've already seen of 'bumbling' in the English language there is no entry for 'bumble' and, when we look at this poem from 1786 by Robert Burns, entitled 'On a Scotch Bard, Gone to the West Indies'), it would seem clear that 'bumble' (as opposed to 'bummle') wasn't then a Scottish word:
O Fortune, they hae room to grumble!
Hadst thou taen aff some drwosy bummle,
Wha can do nought but fyke an' fumble
'Twad been nae plea'
But he was gleg as ony wumble,
That's owre the Sea!
It's hard to believe that if the word 'bumble' had been available to Burns he wouldn't have used it to rhyme with grumble, fumble and wumble. (A 'wumble' incidentally appears to be the same as a wimble which is a drill (or auger) and 'gleg' means 'nimble' so that 'gleg as a wumble' presumably means nimble as a wimble! From this poem, 'the drowsy bummle' is included in the Scottish dictionary under the definition of the idle fellow:
In 1833 we find a Peter Hogg writing from Altrieve Lake in the Scottish Borders to a Peter Muir of Edinburgh (as reproduced in The Antiquary of 18 January 1873) saying:
'You are a bummeling thrummeling fumbling rascal and have fairly lost your character as a first rate tradesman'.
If the word used had been bumbling we would here have an example of someone being referred to in a derogatory was as a bumbling rascal but it's important to remember that this isn't bumbling it's 'bummeling' and Hogg was using Scottish dialect. To 'thrummel' or 'thrummil', incidentally, appears to mean to fumble or grope with the fingers.
Mr Bumble was a character in the 1838 book ‘Oliver Twist’. He has been described as the ‘cruel pompous beadle of the poorhouse where the orphaned Oliver is raised’. The word ‘bumbledom’ was derived from Mr Bumble and is said in one nineteenth century dictionary to mean ‘Fussy official pomposity; a sarcastic term applied especially to members of petty corporations, as vestries in England, and implying pretentious inefficiency’. Mr Bumble wasn’t the blundering incompetent type of person implied by the expression ‘bumbling buffoon’ and there is no reason think that his character, or the word 'bumbledom', played any role in the way the word ‘bumbling’ came to be used.
The 1844 New Dictionary of the English language doesn’t include the word ‘bumbling’ or ‘bumble’.
The 1845 Encyclopaedia Metropolitana or Universal Dictionary of Knowledge includes ‘bumble’ in relation to the noise of the bittern or bee (but, curiously, this is under the word ‘Bum’ from which it seems to suggest bumble is derived). Although there is no mention of bumbling, it gives the 1533 example by Thomas More of 'some bumlying aboute' as an example for 'bumble' without providing any definition in this sense, so no-one could have possibly understood from the dictionary what that example meant.
From Google Books, we find mention in an 1870 story entitled ‘The Cause and the Causer; The Post-Mortem’ by F.W. Keyl of ‘bumbling barristers’ but that’s in a story about insects. A moth has been found dead, the doctor, Dr Earwig, is an earwig and the magistrate, Dr Helix, is a snail. The barristers are ‘bumble bee barristers’ and there are a number of mentions of them as ‘bumbling barristers’ but, having read the entire story, there is no hint that they are incompetent or blundering. At one point the magistrate refers to them as ‘my bumbling friends’ and the word ‘bumbling’ in this story, in my opinion, means nothing more than that they are bumble bees who therefore ‘bumble’ (which probably means humming like a bee). The very fact that Keyl uses the term ‘bumbling barristers’ without them being humorously stupid or foolish strongly indicates that the word ‘bumbling’ with that meaning hadn't yet entered the English language (or to the extent that it existed in earlier centuries had, by this time, been forgotten).
The O.E.D. also includes a racing quote from 1876 which states: ‘Merry Girl beat Unknown in good style, the latter bumbling very much at his fences’ but I don’t think that’s quite the meaning, or at least the use, of the word ‘bumbling’ that we would associate with ‘bumbling buffoon’.
We've already seen the Scottish word of 'bummeler' or 'bumler' to describe a blundering person and, deriving from this, and said to be Scottish in origin, ‘bumbler’ is included in the O.E.D. (although this word was also used to describe a bee). The OED gives a seventeenth century use: ‘As long as ye give not Him the Chief Place and Room, ye will be but Bumblers at doing' and one from 1783 referring to ‘A bumbler or bungler of any piece of work’ which shows that a bumbler was synonymous with a bungler.
An 1846 'Glossary of North Country Words' by John Trotter Brockett defines a Bumbler (also Bummeler) as 'a blundering fellow, a bungler' and says that to Bummel or Bumble is 'to blunder, to bungle'.
This definition goes back to at least 1829 where it is found in the first edition of the glossary. The author explains in the preface that 'Our Northern words and terms, though often disguised in different spelling and structure, bear strong affinity to the Scottish language' and that 'a number of words in this Glossary, which are unknown in the South, are in common use in the North of Scotland'.
As to that, we've already seen an example from Jamieson's Scottish dictionary in 1808 and we may note that a 'bummler', 'bummeler', 'bumlar' or 'bumbler' can be found in a modern online Dictionary of the Scots Language here to mean variously someone who reads in an indistinct tone or sings or plays an instrument in a bungling manner, someone who stutters and stammers or speaks carelessly, someone who bustles about busily but noisily and not effectively, someone who blunders or confuses, someone who works confusedly and someone who weeps continuously. A number of examples are given, including from the nineteenth century, but as they invariably refer to someone 'bummlin', or to people as 'bummlers', I'm not going to repeat them here, because it's not actually bumbling.
A Scottish book, 'The Dialect of Banffshire' published in 1866 includes 'Bummlin'' for which the meanings given are (a) 'stupid and clumsy at working' (b) 'Having a habit of reading in a blundering, indistinct manner', (c) 'much given to weeping' with an example given as 'There's that bummlin' loon t' the rod again. He hiz his finger eye in 's ee'. Had that been 'bumbling loon' it would have been an example of the type of expression we are looking for but, of course it's different and confined to an area of Scotland.
See also this Scots Word of the Week from the Scottish newspaper The Herald here discussing a 'Bummler' as a blundering person.
It may or may not be relevant that the German word 'bummeln' translates as strolling (or to stroll), to dawdle or to dillydally but let's not get into that.
In an 1851 book by John Ruskin we find this (referring to what was spoken in Durham):
'A humble or bumble bee is there called a 'bumbler'. To bumble in Durham means to go buzzing about; a fussy man would be called a great bumbler.'
That's interesting because a fussy man is not quite the same as a bungling man and could lead to confusion.
The earliest known use of 'bumbling' in the English language to describe a person, as mentioned above, seems to be in an 1866 novel by Eliza Lynn Linton, a writer from Cumbria, who refers to a woman having fallen in love with 'a sandy-powed bumbling fellow' who was a parson but who looked 'better like a gamekeeper than a parson'. The meaning of 'bumbling' in this context is not entirely clear. ('pow' or 'powe', by the way, was a North Country word meaning 'head' so she's talking about a sandy-haired fellow). Another character in the same book referred to his own 'slight well-knit figure' which was 'by no means of the "bumbling" order' whatever that is supposed to mean.
An 1881 book by the same Eliza Lynn Linton, My Love, appears to be the first nineteenth century English work to describe a particular person as a ‘bumbler’ as the author says, ‘Ran is the best follow in the world, but he is a bit of a bumbler when all is said and done’. It's fair to say, I think, that 'bumbler' wasn't a particularly well known word nor much used (just as it isn't today).
I do find it very, interesting, though, that Eliza Linton, who is generally recognized has having coined the word 'bumbler' in the nineteenth century, then went on to be the person who provides the second known recognizable reference of a person being bumbling in her 1886 book Paston Carew in which, as set out in the main article, a rector's son is described as 'a big bumbling fellow...awkward as a mastiff puppy or nestling cuckoo'. As I've said above, this suggests more awkwardness then bungling incompetence.
This use of the word 'bumbling' is cited under the word 'Bummellan' to mean 'awkward, blundering' in an 1899 publication entitled 'Glossary of the Words and Phrases Pertaining to the Dialect of Cumberland' by W. Dickinson clearly showing that it was still regarded as a North Country word at the end of the century.
It is also the case that 'Bumble' appears in an 1898 publication entitled 'The English dialect dictionary' in which it is said to have various dialect uses in different forms Scotland and England. The areas of use are stated to be Scotland, East Riding of Yorkshire, North Lancashire, Leicester and West Somerset. One definition of 'Bumble' is given as 'To bungle, blunder, make a mess of; to halt, stumble' and one of 'Bumbling' is given as 'awkward, blundering'. All examples given are in respect of 'bummel' other than one from 1883 in which a coat is referred to as being 'bumbled up', an undated one saying 'Will I be ter'ble bumbled' and the Linton quote of 'his own trim, slight, well-built figure, by no means of the bumbling order' from 1867. There's also another from 1866 in Notes & Queries: 'If I've seed anybody in ar bit of a bumble about his work'. I reproduce the full extract below to show all the examples.


Ten years earlier, the massive nine volume 1888 New English Dictionary on Historical Principles did include an entry for ‘Bumbling’ and gave two definitions, both said to be obsolete: (a) blundering (b) buzzing or humming. Of the three examples provided, two related to flies and bees while the only example given of apparent blundering was the 1533 example referred to above by Thomas More of ‘bumlying aboute a colour’. Under 'Bumble', said to be 'obs. exc. Sc', meaning: obsolete except in Scotland, defined as: 'To blunder, flounder' we find Thomas More's 1533 quotes (said to be from 1532) referring to 'The thynge where about he hath bombled' and another 'bumbled about' quote from More relating to Tindall. We also have a 1719 Ramsay quote of 'say ye bummil Ye'r poetrie' and Stagg from 1807 saying 'As for a bang he bummel'd'. The word ‘Bumbler’ is also included as a dialect word and is defined as a blunderer (but with the only example given of the extract from Eliza Linton's book referred to above).
In theory, then, one could have taken the word 'bumbling' to mean 'blundering' and called someone a 'bumbling buffoon' but it's clear that this did not happen in practice and my suggestion is that, in the real world, 'bumbling' was not a word in 1888 which brought to mind an incompetent, bungling, useless idiot or fool and it wasn't used by anyone to describe individuals as such. At best, it would have been thought of as someone (or something) bumbling about or bumbling around or carrying out a task in a bumbling way. It wasn't (as proved by actual examples) a word which would be used to describe a person.
It's worth noting that the television programme ‘Call my Bluff’ ran in the UK for 23 years in which two teams of three people provided definitions of obscure words (taken, I think, from the O.E.D.), two of which were false and one was correct. The other team had to guess the correct definition. This shows that there are many words in the dictionary which normal people don't understand. In respect of a 'bumbler' or 'bumbling' to mean a blunderer or blundering person respectively we really only have three examples of actual usage prior to 1888, all provided by the same person, Eliza Linton, who used both words in her books and who was from the North Country (in circumstances where we are told by the reference books that 'bumbling' was North Country dialect). So she liked the word and it clearly could be used to describe a blunderer (although she seems to have used it to mean an awkward person) but the evidence clearly suggests that it wasn’t in general use in this way. Other dictionaries didn’t even include it.
The 1889 Century Dictionary, for example, gives only four meanings for ‘bumble’ other than a bee (namely to make a humming noise, to make a splash in the sea, to scold and to start off quickly).
When we get to Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language published in 1908 we also don’t have an entry for 'bumbling' or 'bumble'. Webster’s 1913 Unabridged Dictionary also doesn’t include ‘bumble’ (other than in respect of a bee or bittern) or ‘bumbling’.
Sure, someone could be 'bumbling along' (whatever that meant) as we find in ''The Field' of 19 March 1887 but that's still a long way from calling a person a bumbling [something].
A 1908 short story by an American writer, Edwina Stanton Babcock, entitled 'In the Green Theater' published in The Outing magazine refers to 'a sound' being 'more bumbling than grumbling' but one of the characters says, 'Bumbling isn't a real word?'. Similarly, in a 1916 book entitled The Kings Men by John Palmer one character refers to 'the bumbling of the Baddeleys' (the Baddeleys being a family) while another says that the other character 'invented the word'.
The Staffordshire Sentinel of January 1906 includes a story by Edward Hamilton Currey which has a line referring to a sailing boat 'bumbling out of the Humber at a proud three knots an hour' which, being proud, doesn't seem to give the impression of floundering or blundering but might mean sailing awkwardly or possibly splashing its way through the river, bearing in mind one of the definitions in the 1889 Century dictionary of splashing in the sea.
As we've seen in the main text, a 1909 book by Eden Phillpotts included a line ‘Why, God stiffen it, you bumbling fool!’ Without further research I wouldn’t like to say for sure that this was the first written combination of ‘bumbling’ with a derogatory noun such as ‘fool’ but I think it might have been or, if not, it wasn’t long after the first such use. I suspect that it’s only AFTER THIS that the word 'bumbling' carries a derogatory connotation over and above awkwardness in the general English language.
My suggestion is that THIS is why no-one in 1888 would have thought of tagging ‘bumbling’ onto the front of ‘buffoon’. It just didn’t convey a meaning of buffoonery at that time. Certainly, as a matter of fact, no-one appears to have done so, hence we don’t find it being used until almost the second half of the twentieth century. In my view, based on what I’ve discovered so far, it took time for ‘bumbling’ to mean a fool or idiot to filter through into the English language as used by normal people. And it was only then, after people became comfortable with the concepts of a 'bumbling fool' and a 'bumbling idiot', that 'bumbling' became appropriate to use in front of 'buffoon' and replaced as first choice of the writer the words 'bungling' and 'blundering' which had previously been used to emphasize the nature of the buffoon.
One thing worth noting to avoid confusion is that a story by Phil Robinson (eventually published in 1897 in a book called 'In Garden Orchard & Spinney'), part of which was originally published in some UK newspapers in 1887 under the title of 'Wasps', has a wasp referring to a bee as 'You bumbling fellow, in your jerkin of woolly brown' but again the bumbling relates to the bee (and presumably to its humming).
Finally, I just want to stress that I'm here attempting to explain why we don't as a matter of fact find 'bumbling buffoon' or 'bumbling [anything]' in any known nineteenth century document. This is my best explanation. I'm not saying that this must be the answer but I can't think of a better one. If anyone wants to argue that I'm wrong, without providing a better explanation, I suggest the only way to do it is to find an example of the expression actually used in the nineteenth century. If you can't do it that must tell you something, no?
LORD ORSAM
First published: 19 September 2020
Re-published: 30 January 2024
Updated July 2024