D'Onston for dummies

[andy1867]

Thanks all...seems i oft times need pointing in the right direction,
Andy

[lynn cates]

guidance

Hello Andy. Thanks.

We can all use a bit of guidance. And that time is better spent than in feuding.

Any time.

Cheers.
LC

[andy1867]

To be fair I did start this thread simply to interact with folk who were well versed in the case.
Its alright people saying "Read this, listen to that" ..fair enough
but,
its hardly the same as chatting to the board as a whole sorta thingy.
I started this thread so people like me could ask "Daft questions"..If that gets your back up, simply ignore the bloody thing.
Ive made a donation for the site, i'll do that every 6 months or so, simply so I won't feel so guilty.
In no way am I going to buy ALL the books cos some have touted a lot of them as sheer fantasy, and I find this site so informative I don't feel the need.
Thanks for all the replies, I really appreciate the spoonfeeding, but don't feel in anyway obliged to do it, I appreciate a lot of people have worked very hard to gather the information they have, and probably heave a sigh every time I, or someone like me posts tat.
Whats ancient history to some, is a revelation to me, we all start somewhere.once again thanks for your patience.
Andy

[Wickerman]

I, for one, sympathize with you Andy.

One of the frustrating aspects for many longtime members is the frequent re-visiting of past debates, yet it must be tolerated and can be beneficial for all parties.
New members are always coming and going and we cannot expect them to educate themselves solely in written material, interaction is always necessary.

Also, reviewing a past debate can be beneficial for both parties, as on occasion new blood can bring a different perspective to a problem. An 'old-hand' can fall into a rigid mindset and become oblivious to details not previously considered.

All that said, aside from the great Press Section here on Casebook (WHEN IT IS WORKING!!) - [sorry, just a hint to Admin to fix the Calendar feature], you do need a few choice books, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Casebook, A-Z, etc. if for nothing else to give you the very background necessary for meaningful discussions.

[andy1867]

Staying on the subject of the Press, I'm in the middle of going through "The Star" reports on the site.
I know "the Star" was seen as a more radical sort of paper does anyone think this would have an effect on the information given to the paper by the police?.
I notice that The Star attacks Warren constantly, and that it quotes dissatisfaction of your average policeman, often or most always quoting officers and constables without naming names,
So I was wondering if the powers that be at Scotland Yard viewed it with suspicion and gave it less time than some of the mainstream papers, or the broadsheets so to speak
Andy

[Wickerman]

Staying on the subject of the Press, I'm in the middle of going through "The Star" reports on the site.
I know "the Star" was seen as a more radical sort of paper does anyone think this would have an effect on the information given to the paper by the police?.
I notice that The Star attacks Warren constantly, and that it quotes dissatisfaction of your average policeman, often or most always quoting officers and constables without naming names,
So I was wondering if the powers that be at Scotland Yard viewed it with suspicion and gave it less time than some of the mainstream papers, or the broadsheets so to speak
Andy

The Star were very anti-authority primarily due to the political beliefs of its editor T. P. O'Connor - home rule for Ireland, and all that. So, naturally much of their critique was aimed at political figures in England.
The paper itself was politically Liberal, as determined by its primary investors, but when O'Connor attacked both Liberal & Conservative's acrimony set in between the two.

The press in general complained that throughout the spate of the Whitechapel murders the police were reluctant to tell the press anything.
Largely because the Star often singled out Warren for ridicule then there was no love lost between the police and the Star reporters - so naturally, the Star, in the eyes of the police were at the bottom of the barrel.

Contrary to the opinions of some, the Star obtained nothing of value from the police, what they did do is pursue detectives to locate witnesses and try to guess what the line of enquiry was, which they often got wrong.

One contemporary opinion of the Star went: "...The Star, half a crusade, and half a joke". This was due, on the one hand to, the strong pro-Irish sentiments in its political opinions, and its lack of moral fiber with regard to the truth.
Make of that what you will. Their prime motivation in 1888, their first year of existence, was to 'sell copy', by fair means or foul.

If you set aside the pretentious claims by the Star that they had 'inside' knowledge with regard to how the murder investigation was proceeding, then what we can see as beneficial to the modern reader is their colourful presentation of life in Whitechapel, its rough and destitute inhabitants, and its first-hand witness interviews.
When they stick to what they know, ie; their surroundings, the Star can be pretty informative and interesting.

[andy1867]

The Star were very anti-authority primarily due to the political beliefs of its editor T. P. O'Connor - home rule for Ireland, and all that. So, naturally much of their critique was aimed at political figures in England.
The paper itself was politically Liberal, as determined by its primary investors, but when O'Connor attacked both Liberal & Conservative's acrimony set in between the two.

The press in general complained that throughout the spate of the Whitechapel murders the police were reluctant to tell the press anything.
Largely because the Star often singled out Warren for ridicule then there was no love lost between the police and the Star reporters - so naturally, the Star, in the eyes of the police were at the bottom of the barrel.

Contrary to the opinions of some, the Star obtained nothing of value from the police, what they did do is pursue detectives to locate witnesses and try to guess what the line of enquiry was, which they often got wrong.

One contemporary opinion of the Star went: "...The Star, half a crusade, and half a joke". This was due, on the one hand to, the strong pro-Irish sentiments in its political opinions, and its lack of moral fiber with regard to the truth.
Make of that what you will. Their prime motivation in 1888, their first year of existence, was to 'sell copy', by fair means or foul.

If you set aside the pretentious claims by the Star that they had 'inside' knowledge with regard to how the murder investigation was proceeding, then what we can see as beneficial to the modern reader is their colourful presentation of life in Whitechapel, its rough and destitute inhabitants, and its first-hand witness interviews.
When they stick to what they know, ie; their surroundings, the Star can be pretty informative and interesting.

Thanks Wickerman,
So I presume they were not debarred from press conferences or the inquests where others were allowed in or such?

[Wickerman]

Thanks Wickerman,
So I presume they were not debarred from press conferences or the inquests where others were allowed in or such?

There were no such things as Press Conferences But no, the Star had the same access to a seat at the inquest as any other member of the press.

Some reporters were located at a Station House waiting for the next break in a story to appear. Other reporters followed detectives around the East End, and when the police left the scene, the reporter then approached the same witness to extract what they told the police, from them.
Warren complained bitterly about this practice.

The police were following a written regulation which prevented them from giving details to the press without authorization from Warren himself.
Regardless, common sense dictates that whatever the police tell the press, they are also telling the killer - so why inform the killer of how the investigation is progressing.

[andy1867]

Thanks Wickerman, much appreciated,
I find it interesting how the stories mature in the Press,
Initially the names of the victims are wrong,or unknown , which I suppose is fair enough, then the witnesses give evidence at the inquiry, but seem to elaborate more sometimes when the press question them,Whether thats because the Press ask different questions, or the witnesses see the chance of making a few bob, and drag it out a bit longer ..I dunno.
For folk who are scrabbling for a few pennies, it must be one hell of a temptation to elaborate a little, just to keep the interest going, and it all seems to come down to us as a stew that you have to sift the meat from, so to speak.
It really is fascinating
Andy

[Wickerman]

Thanks Wickerman, much appreciated,
I find it interesting how the stories mature in the Press,
Initially the names of the victims are wrong,or unknown , which I suppose is fair enough, then the witnesses give evidence at the inquiry, but seem to elaborate more sometimes when the press question them,Whether thats because the Press ask different questions, or the witnesses see the chance of making a few bob, and drag it out a bit longer ..I dunno.
For folk who are scrabbling for a few pennies, it must be one hell of a temptation to elaborate a little, just to keep the interest going, and it all seems to come down to us as a stew that you have to sift the meat from, so to speak.
It really is fascinating
Andy

You're right Andy, it is a fascinating study, how the whole press coverage evolves.

Also, yes, a reporter will ask different questions than those posed by the Coroner.
The Coroner is not investigating a murder, that is the job of the police. The questions posed by the Coroner are to assist him in determining the answers to certain questions: Who died, When & Where they died, and by What means.
However, the Coroner is not limited to the questions he may choose to ask.
A Reporter, on the other hand, is more interested in extracting a story which has the potential of being 'grabbing' to the reader. The Reporter needs this because his Editor wants this.

So, on the one hand we have a Coroner who may not be asking all the questions 'we' would like to know the answer to, and on the other hand we have a Reporter who may be directing the witness with his questions, and elaborating on what the witness actually said, in order to make the story more appealing.

Somewhere between the two lay the answers to what we want to know.

[andy1867]

Hello I'm back....
Ive been researchin'...from the safety of me armchair mind...
Has anyone come across a victim..or alleged victim named Mary Woolfe