The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Garry Wroe]

What the press cannot do is provide accurate opinions on the direction of the inquiry or even inside knowledge about the investigation.

I would disagree, Jon. Newsmen not only staked out police stations in order to report any arrests that were made, they elicited information by following detectives engaged on active inquiries. On top of this they paid policeman for inside information, a practice which recent UK history tells us continues to this day. Intelligence was the stock in trade for any newspaper and they acquired it however they could, whether by fair means or foul.

[DVV]

Well, Abby, 'Inspector Harris' certainly believed that the killer would most likely be found in the Victoria Home or somewhere like it. If, as I and others strongly suspect, 'Harris' was Reid, we have powerful confirmation as to the viability of the Victoria Home as the Ripper's lair.

Agreed, and that was also Henry Moore's (firm) opinion.

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

Agreed, and that was also Henry Moore's (firm) opinion.

Cheers

Hi DVD, Garry and Ben
Yes you all have provided convincing arguments which make me rethink my previous idea.

Thank you.

[Wickerman]

I would disagree, Jon. Newsmen not only staked out police stations in order to report any arrests that were made, they elicited information by following detectives engaged on active inquiries. On top of this they paid policeman for inside information, a practice which recent UK history tells us continues to this day. Intelligence was the stock in trade for any newspaper and they acquired it however they could, whether by fair means or foul.

Hello Garry.
Yes indeed, I have also mentioned these three points you raise, the press did have a reporter inside the station house, and reporters did follow detectives, and occasionally 'bribe' a juicy story from a constable in need of a dram.

None of which amounts to a 'reliable' source.
You have read yourself that on making enquiries at the station (as to the charges, the identification of prisoner, etc.) the press were firmly referred to Scotland Yard.

Warren himself complained about reporters following his detectives, but this was a two-way street, because the police also used the reporters, as they often uncovered more witnesses than the police had been able to.

And when a reporter is able to extract a piece of 'inside'? information from a beat constable, who knows how thick the icing is being applied in order to get a second dram?

What would a constable know about the Scotland Yard investigation anyway?

All the "what-ifs" that you can imagine don't amount to anything of substance, especially nothing to indicate the police gave details of their investigation directly to the killer, which is what speaking to the press is actually doing.

[Wickerman]

If, as I and others strongly suspect, 'Harris' was Reid, we have powerful confirmation as to the viability of the Victoria Home as the Ripper's lair.

Hello Garry.
Is this opinion powerful because you agree with it, or is there something that sets this opinion apart from every other police officials independent view?

Please note, Harris=Reid is only an assumption.

[DVV]

Hi Jon,

what about Moore ?
He knew Whitechapel 1888 more than we do, and replaced Abberline.

Cheers

[Garry Wroe]

And when a reporter is able to extract a piece of 'inside'? information from a beat constable, who knows how thick the icing is being applied in order to get a second dram?

I wasn't thinking in terms of a lowly constable, Jon. Recent events leave little room for doubting that News International had some extremely senior policemen in its pocket. The cover-up surrounding the Hillsborough disaster appears to implicate a number of high-ranking policemen too, as have any number of corruption scandals. Indeed, such was the level of corruption in the Met that Nipper Reid felt compelled to sequester his operational team when investigating the Krays in the late-Sixties.

With this in mind, Jon, one would have to be naive in the extreme to believe that Victorian newspaper editors and their reporters did not have their police sources in the middle- and upper-ranks.

[Garry Wroe]

Is this opinion powerful because you agree with it, or is there something that sets this opinion apart from every other police officials independent view?

I don't play the game in that manner, Jon. And nor do I consider that 'Harris's' opinion should be taken in isolation. Anderson himself asserted that 'we' believed the killer to have been a low-status local, a conviction that was borne out by the many swoops on local low lodging houses and casual wards.

[DRoy]

Hello Garry.
Is this opinion powerful because you agree with it, or is there something that sets this opinion apart from every other police officials independent view?

Please note, Harris=Reid is only an assumption.

Jon,

It is an assumption but I discussed it quite thoroughly in one of the MJK threads (Actually, I think you argued with me there?). Without having him being able to personally say so, the best we can do is put rational thought and our knowledge of Reid together and arrive at that conclusion.

If I may offer an opinion, then I would say yes Reid's opinion should be considered "powerful", valuable and informative regardless whether his views differed from his peers and his superiors. I'm sure you don't need an explanation why.

Regardless whether you believe Harris to be Reid, unless you are suggesting that the entire story of Harris was made up, there still was someone that gave that info to the press. Unless the murders were solved, it shouldn't have happened but it did.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

I wasn't thinking in terms of a lowly constable, Jon. Recent events leave little room for doubting that News International had some extremely senior policemen in its pocket. The cover-up surrounding the Hillsborough disaster appears to implicate a number of high-ranking policemen too, as have any number of corruption scandals. Indeed, such was the level of corruption in the Met that Nipper Reid felt compelled to sequester his operational team when investigating the Krays in the late-Sixties.

What this kind of response tells me Garry is, that you will insist on believing the 19th century press obtained inside information on the Ripper murders regardless of the fact you cannot substantiate your belief.

Is there any story which appeared in the press throughout the whole Whitechapel murder investigation which either; could not have been sourced through idle gossip with a lowly constable or, could not have been pieced together by reporters following behind the detectives on the streets?
Give me an example.

With this in mind, Jon, one would have to be naive in the extreme to believe that Victorian newspaper editors and their reporters did not have their police sources in the middle- and upper-ranks.

Thats a tired response Garry, both Sugden and Lee Curtis Perry have researched this, so at worst I guess I am in good company.
The alternate suggestion might be that those who cling to the same belief as you simply have not done their homework - hows about that?

[Wickerman]

Jon,

It is an assumption but I discussed it quite thoroughly in one of the MJK threads (Actually, I think you argued with me there?). Without having him being able to personally say so, the best we can do is put rational thought and our knowledge of Reid together and arrive at that conclusion.

If I may offer an opinion, then I would say yes Reid's opinion should be considered "powerful", valuable and informative regardless whether his views differed from his peers and his superiors. I'm sure you don't need an explanation why.

Regardless whether you believe Harris to be Reid, unless you are suggesting that the entire story of Harris was made up, there still was someone that gave that info to the press. Unless the murders were solved, it shouldn't have happened but it did.

Cheers
DRoy

Hello DRoy, yes I do recall that exchange.
In order to believe that Harris was Reid we are required to accept a selection of apologetics, which I mentioned to you before. The article includes how their source came about:

"Our informant, knew a man, who's wife's brother, had a friend who was distantly related in a business way to Scotland Yard and it was possible that by the use of diplomacy and finesse this friend might be able to induce an officer to take the risk for a proper consideration."

The term, Smoke and Mirrors, comes to mind.

The article which is dated 1889 says Harris was in his 50's, Reid was 43

The article describes Harris with grey hair, when Reid retired in 1896 he still had black hair.

Harris was said to have been "born and reared" in Whitechapel, whereas Reid was from Kent.

Of course we can invent excuses to justify our beliefs, that seems to be the normal occupation these days. The bare facts remain, all apologetics aside, that in so far as we know them do not support Harris being Reid.

Its all a question of how much duct tape and chicken wire do 'we' want to employ to keep our ship afloat?

Please note, at the end of the day Harris told the reporters nothing of value and was not even well versed on the case.

[DVV]

Jon, for God's sake (I have my rugbystic reasons to be melodramatic tonight), why do you ignore Moore's theory/opinion ?

Cheers

[Wickerman]

But not "every male Jew in his thirties donning a black moustache" was investigated as a potential suspect in the ripper murders as Isaacs was, Jon, that's the crucial difference.

And why do you think that was Ben?

His arrest had nothing to do with his resemblance to Astrakhan.

True.

He was investigated because of his criminal behaviour and his alleged threats towards women, and only afterwards was a reference made to the alleged Astrakhan similarity.

I think you are confusing two different periods. He was only investigated after the 5th Dec., as with the coat, but the alleged threats against women came before the 5th Dec.


Isaacs disappearance after the Kelly murder, couples with his odd behaviour in particular on the same night caused him to be regarded as a Person of Interest, but nothing more.

Why did he not return to his room? - likely because the police located him, which we know to be the case, as he was subsequently arrested and did appear in the police court at Barnet on 12th Nov.
Isaacs is sentenced to 21 days hard labor, being released on 3rd Dec.

Enter George Hutchinson, who described a short man, black moustache, Jewish appearance, wearing an Astrachan coat.
Despite hours of searching for this man he is nowhere to be found, yet he is said to be well known in the area (like Isaacs). This is on the 12-13th Nov.

Your suggestion Ben, if I'm not mistaken is, that because Isaacs was Jewish, in his 30's, with a black moustache, this would be enough to make him a suspect?

No!

Isaac's is known to the police, they have his description, he is under lock and key. They knew he was around town on 8-9th Nov. but he is not known to be a suspect in the murders.
So why did the police not investigate the whereabouts of Isaacs while they had him in prison?

For the simple reason it was 'the coat' which was the determining factor, and the police did not know if he had one. This means Isaacs is just another 30+ year old Jewish male with a moustache, and not a suspect in the murders.

Isaacs is released on 3rd Dec. then we have the watch incident, and once again he is arrested on the 5th.

Only after this date do we read of the resemblance between Isaacs and Hutchinson's Astrachan.

"After her statement a look out was kept for the prisoner, whose appearance certainly answered the published description of a man with an astrachan trimming to his coat."


The following week we read a vague hint in the press.
"Detective Record said that there were some matters alleged against the prisoner which it was desired to inquire into."

Also, here is a direct assumption in the press, on the 15th Dec. that Hutchinson's Astrachan was none other than Joseph Isaacs:

"The prisoner, it may be remembered, had been sought for by the police in consequence of a report of his movements on the night of the murder of Mary Janet Kelly in Dorset street, Spitalfields; and it was said by the police that they wished the fullest inquiry as to the prisoner's movements on the night of Nov. 8."
Daily News, 15 Dec.

[Note: it was Hutchinson's Astrachan (ie; Isaacs, above) who had been sought for by police with respect to his movements on 8th Nov.]

The police had arrested Isaacs on 5th Dec. and held him pending enquiries into his movements on the night of Kelly's murder. This would no doubt have included searching his room at Paternoster Row. This is the most likely instance where the police find the coat trimmed with Astrachan (hence the rumors in the press, but only after the 5th of Dec).
Subsequently however, Isaacs is cleared of complicity in the Kelly murder and is given the choice of going for trial on a charge of larceny, or plead guilty.

I do understand your resistance to accepting that Isaacs was Astrachan but the weight of evidence speaks in favor of this conclusion. There is no better suspect, and to date you have produced nothing to argue against it.

[Wickerman]

Jon, for God's sake (I have my rugbystic reasons to be melodramatic tonight), why do you ignore Moore's theory/opinion ?

Cheers

Dave.
Do I assume the opinions you talk about are those published in the Pall Mall Gazette of 4th Nov.?

This interview was the exception, because it was arranged with and sanctioned by Anderson himself, so Moore had clearance to say what he did.

Rarely do the press name their sources, and this example only serves to enforce my point that if their sources are legitimate then they have no cause to avoid naming them.

[DVV]

No, Jon, the article I was alluding to was published in "Le Gaulois". A long and fascinating one. And very clear as to Moore's opinion.

Cheers