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

[DVV]

That's true.

It's true that it's true, Sally.
Often the case with Ben. (Sorry Jon, but I mean it.)

Cheers

[Sally]

The Morning Advertiser - a rag for the pub trade - were obviously considerably behind the times. They also made the dubious claim that it had been "conclusive proved" that Kelly had spent the evening of her death in Ringers' pub, and that some residents of Miller's Court had sworn statements to the effect that Kelly was out and about in Dorset Street between 2.00 and 3.00.

They were dealing in old news and wrong news.

That's true. The Morning Advertiser were often in error, in fact - at least, so we must assume since their version of the news was frequently a mismatch with the majority of other contemporary publications.

It was a subscription paper, I believe - for the pub trade, as you say Ben.

It still exists today, of course.

While it's always interesting to consider the press reports of 1888, not all can be considered equal - self-evidently so.

BW

S

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

As I've mentioned before, the black and white perception of the Star as the ultimate bad eggs in the Whitechapel investigation is an old hat argument. It is very much much out of date, and it fails to take into proper consideration the newspaper's obvious qualities. We all know they were somewhat Maverick in their approach and took the odd liberty (etc), but they were also very determined and proactive, as evinced by their running Schwartz to earth and interviewing him. Where there's a will there's a way, and there was no shortage of willpower on the part of the Star's journalists - that much is abundantly clear. If any newspaper was resourceful and determined enough to gain access to inside information, it was the Star. I know there was a fairly crap documentary aired recently that made the Star out to be the ultimate villains, writing all the hoax letters, creating the Jack the Ripper legend, "wrongly" linking the victims to the same killer and so on and so forth, but it would be folly to let that influence our thinking.

The Star appears to reject Hutchinson altogether, whereas the Echo only claims his story is less important than it first appeared.
However, no reason is offered by either newspaper, which brings us to...

Firstly, the Echo did not merely claim that "his story is less important". They stated that a "very reduced importance" was attached to Hutchinson's claims. Secondly, it is simply not the case that "no reason is offered by either newspaper". The Echo could not have made the reason any less glaringly obvious when they reported that the statement had been:

"considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner"

And yes, this "reason" is inextricably and indisputably linked to the issue of credibility and honesty. It's impossible for it not to be. The "authorities" were explicitly querying his failure to come forward before the opportunity to be questioned "on oath" had passed. Remember that whatever bad excuse Hutchinson may have come up with at the time of the Abberline interview for not alerting the authorities earlier, it couldn't realistically have been verified by the time Abberline filed his report. Hence, the report must have been sent up the chain in the absence of any established, solid, verified "reason" for Hutchinson's delay. They simply didn't have one.

The Star are only slightly less blatant. The term "discredited" already implies doubt over credibility issues, but reinforcing this impression is the fact that Hutchinson was lumped into the same category as Matthew Packer in an article entitled "Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents". Interestingly, the same article says of Matter Packer:

"The reporter to whom Packer made his statement sent off a copy of it to the Home Secretary, and also to the Chief Commissioner of the City Police"

...which constitutes a further example of a police-press communication with regard to "inside" information. As if we needed any more...

And yes, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that Hutchinson was discredited.

As for the Morning Advertiser, we've had this discussion before, if you remember. This particular newspaper was claiming that the name of the author of the statement had been withheld for reasons of his own safety (to prevent that naughty, nasty Mr. Astrakhan using his American-cloth wrapped knife on him presumably!) on the same day that the vast majority of more mainstream and reputable papers were reporting an interview that took place with Hutchinson himself, which included his name. The Morning Advertiser - a rag for the pub trade - were obviously considerably behind the times. They also made the dubious claim that it had been "conclusive proved" that Kelly had spent the evening of her death in Ringers' pub, and that some residents of Miller's Court had sworn statements to the effect that Kelly was out and about in Dorset Street between 2.00 and 3.00.

They were dealing in old news and wrong news.

If it's a choice between a newspaper that prints out-of-date information and proven falsehoods, and a newspaper with a proven communication with the police, I'm obviously going with the latter. Whatever the Morning Advertiser's source, they can't have obtained their information directly from the police station (as the Echo did) because we see the same bogus claims in a near identical article in another fairly obscure B-team newspaper (I forget which). It indicates instead that they obtained their information from a less informed, behind-the-times agency.

So, when the Echo published their melodramatic (exaggerated) paragraph on the 13th, the police already knew why he did not appear. It was the press in general, and the Echo in particular, who had not been informed. Which in turn demonstrates that the police are still not sharing case related information with the press.

This is all so terribly wrong.

The Echo article was the polar opposite of melodramatic or exaggerated. It was a reserved piece of journalism, wholly devoid of emotion, which simply commented on a witness who wasn't being taken seriously anymore. Hardly a newsflash. Yes, they did know precisely why his evidence suffered a "very reduced importance", and yes, we do know that the outlined reason for this is correct. And no, there is not a single argument that "demonstrates that the police are still not sharing case related information with the press" because that claim is 100% inaccurate and proven false.

The pretense written into the paragraph is false, it is devised to suggest that because 'we' (Echo) have no answer, then the police have no answer, which in turn is intended to show how helpless the police are.

No, it isn't.

It's intended to report precisely what the Echo learned directly from the police, which it does very successfully, without sensationalism and without the slightest hint of an agenda to make the police look bad.

The intent was to show the police as incompetent fools.
Eg: The police suddenly have the supreme witness, then just as quickly they have nothing. The Scotland Yard detectives are seen to be fools!

No, that wasn't the intent.

The Star's article doesn't depict the police in a remotely bad light. On the contrary, it depicts the police as proactive in investigating eyewitness evidence thoroughly, and to the extent that it resulted in some being taken seriously (Mary Cox) while others were discarded. The only people the article paints a poor picture of is Packer and Hutchinson - the discredited authors of "worthless stories".

There is no incentive for any official to treat a Star reporter to choice information when they persistently castigate and embarrass the police at every opportunity.

They castigated the police for a general habit of reticence, and occasionally cited specific occasions where they have been unforthcoming with information. At no point did they say "The police have never, at any stage, given us any information on anything and nor will will they do so in the future, ever" because that obviously wasn't the case. Were it otherwise, and the extent of mutual antagonism and animosity between the police and Star was a great as you suggest, they would never have bothered even trying to gain access to the Commercial Street Police Station (as per your 21st November article). The fact that they did so indicates that they must have been successful on previous occasions, even if they were only very few and far between.

"Police must not on any account give any information, whatever, to gentlemen connected with the press"

And politicians must not on any account tell lies.

They're all lovely well-intentioned guidelines, but rules get broken I'm afraid.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I still think the excessive focus on the Star is an obfuscation, but no matter.

Ben, if the claim of “discredit” made by the Star was not referred to so often by yourself then there would be no need to pay so much attention to this radical newspaper.

The caution and the criticism I express is only a reflection of the same type of criticism & ridicule this paper suffered at the hands of its contemporaries in 1888.
The Star was a low-brow newspaper not known for accuracy but well known for its political direction, to embarrass the authorities by any means available.

The conclusion that the Star must have been informed by a senior police source is an inescapable one to my mind, based on the fact that it reported, in essence, the same claim made by the Echo, which was to the effect that Hutchinson's account had suffered a "reduced importance"

Whether you regard 'reduced importance - but still being investigated by police' (Echo) as the same as “discredit” (Star) is perhaps a personal choice. I don't think these opinions are compatible, the latter is distinctly more severe than the former.
The Star appears to reject Hutchinson altogether, whereas the Echo only claims his story is less important than it first appeared.
However, no reason is offered by either newspaper, which brings us to...

...owing to doubts about his credibility.

This is your conclusion Ben, even the Star does not question his credibility.
I have little doubt you would say that to discredit someone is to question their credibility. However, it is the charge of “discredit” which is under examination. Not until it is established by outside sources can we then draw conclusions from that term. One step at a time Ben. First you must establish that he was discredited, to date, this has not been done.
The Morning Advertiser even say's Hutchinson's “veracity is not doubted for a moment”. The Echo ties the diminution to him not appearing at the inquest, which is not the same as questioning his credibility. And, as it was already known when the story was first released that it had not been given at the inquest, then this is hardly the correct reason.
So you are left with one newspaper offering one opinion, which is unjustified, and not shared by any other media.

In the case of the Echo, there can be no doubt that the 13th November report was based on a direct communication between its reporters and a senior police official(s). I explained why this is so about 20 pages ago, and need not do so again.

To your satisfaction, maybe.
The counter, which I have explained to you before Ben is, Hutchinson will not be let go on the night of the 12th before he has explained the delay in coming forward. And, consistent with this view are the words of the Morning Advertiser, where they inform us:
"He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police."
The reason was known, but not shared.

So, when the Echo published their melodramatic (exaggerated) paragraph on the 13th, the police already knew why he did not appear. It was the press in general, and the Echo in particular, who had not been informed. Which in turn demonstrates that the police are still not sharing case related information with the press.
The pretense written into the paragraph is false, it is devised to suggest that because 'we' (Echo) have no answer, then the police have no answer, which in turn is intended to show how helpless the police are.

Thus, in order to account for the Star's reporting the same story, we must accept one of the following explanations.

1) They decided to publish a very obscure lie for some unfathomable reason; a lie that didn't aid sales and wasn't remotely self-serving in any way, and yet just happened - unbeknownst to them - to be the truth.

2) They obtained their information directly from the Echo, despite being an obvious rival, and despite being openly critical about them over their reporting of the Annie Farmer attack.

3) They obtained their information from the police, just as the Echo had a couple of days earlier.

Option #3 is the most realistic here by far.

The Star decided to follow the same plot but add the twist, which was not targeted at Hutchinson at all, it is targeted at the authorities.

The intent was to show the police as incompetent fools.
Eg: The police suddenly have the supreme witness, then just as quickly they have nothing. The Scotland Yard detectives are seen to be fools!

Again, we're not talking about a general practice of police divulging inside information to the press, but it needs to be understood that it certainly happened on occasions. Overall, I think it is.

With reputable papers it just may have happened, the Star is the least likely of them all.
There is no incentive for any official to treat a Star reporter to choice information when they persistently castigate and embarrass the police at every opportunity.
Regardless, so long as the Star continue to complain about no communication from the Met. then it is pointless for anyone 125 years later to claim otherwise.
We are required to accept the words of the principal player.

... That's why I'd question the wisdom of producing lots of anti-police statements from the Star that appeared "pre-Hutchinson". It's only part of the story, and the situation had evidently changed by the 9th November ....

Had it?
I notice you raised this point before, yet the Star were still complaining as late as 21st Nov.

"The police are very reticent on the subject, and the doors of Commercial-street Police Station are closed to all comers.....
After a time, however, that "long, stern swell," the superintendent of the division, marched in with a following of inspectors and detectives, and soon after his arrival, the doors of the station were closely shut, and the representatives of the Press were denied all information."

You are correct that communications deteriorated under Warren, but as I demonstrated with quotes from the Echo,
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=259
...the reluctance of the police to share information with the press pre-dates the arrival of Charles Warren.
And as can be seen the situation continued well into late November, and due to lack of material to draw from may well have continued into the next year.

Where does that quote come from, by the way?

That was my paraphrase, here is a more expanded version.

Howard Vincent, the founding director of the reformed C.I.D., 1878, laid down the rule that:

" Police must not on any account give any information, whatever, to gentlemen connected with the press, relative to matters within police knowledge, or relative to duties to be performed or orders received, or communicate in any manner, either directly or indirectly, with editors, or reporters of newspapers, on any matter connected with the public service, without express or special authority...."
A Police Code and Manual of the Criminal Law, 1881, Vincent, p. 253., or for a brief extract see Sugden, p. 71.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe: Precisely, Fish. The alternative would be akin to a bank robber leaving his name and address with the chief cashier before fleeing to his getaway vehicle.

Agreed, Garry!

This was a general complaint voiced by many newspapers, Fish, not just The Star.

Yes - and you can take my assertion that those who complained did not enjoy any secret information source with the police on those papers to the bank.

The Ripper scare was a massive ongoing story, a godsend in context of circulation. Journalists accustomed to a relatively free flow of information from the authorities were suddenly confronted by a situation wherein information was at a premium. It was with regard to this development that editors and their staff were most critical. All of a sudden journalists had to fight for every scrap of information. But this doesn’t mean that these scribes didn’t acquire information.

As long as they persistently claimed that the police would not inform them, you can be pretty sure that this was the exact case. Like I said, once a paper has the upper hand informationwise, they will draw on that advantage, Garry. And such a channel into the police inquiries would be something the chief editor would be aware of - and brag about.

They simply adopted a more proactive, creative approach to intelligence gathering: knocking on doors, canvassing patrons of public houses, loitering about police stations until three or four in the morning and following detectives actively engaged on the case. We know that associates of the victims, whether real or alleged, were paid for information, so it takes no great leap of the imagination to envisage circumstances wherein police officers and administrators were prepared to bolster their relatively meagre earnings in exchange for the odd snippet of inside information.

They would certainly have been offered the possibility to do so. But the outcome of these efforts are very much mirrored by the lamentations of The Star, Garry. Other papers may not have had the same difficulties, and just like Jon suggests the Met and the City police may have differed in this respect. Whichever applies, it is to my eyes quite evident that The Star came up shorthanded.

Although my memory of the exact source is a little vague, I think it may have been Sims who confirmed that this was indeed the case. If not, he may certainly be cited as an example of a journalist who saw Macnaghten’s supposedly confidential musings with respect to the Druitt affair. Either way, Jon’s contention that at no time did the press glean inside Ripper-related information is unsustainable to my way of thinking, both in terms of the available evidence and good old-fashioned common sense.

Like I say, different papers may have had different luck, whereas they all will have tried to get police information from the horses mouth. But once a paper admits they are not given any police information, itīs a safe bet they are telling the truth. So once again, The Star specifically is what I am speaking of here.

Which is precisely why editors would have been prepared to pay for information which in turn would have boosted sales and thus profit.

They would indeed! And their sole aim would be to sell papers. And not a single one of them would try and do that by admitting that they were not privy to vital information! Itīs an open and shut case, Garry.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Today, the police are sworn to secrecy in many a case, but nevertheless, the information is many a time leaked to the press just the same. And just like you say, Garry, the name of the informant is kept from public knowledge. Sure enough, the informant would take precautions to safeguard his identity too, once again in the manner you propose.

Precisely, Fish. The alternative would be akin to a bank robber leaving his name and address with the chief cashier before fleeing to his getaway vehicle.

This is why I side with Jon on the issue - the Star is pretty adamant that they are left to their own speculations, getting no help from the police.

This was a general complaint voiced by many newspapers, Fish, not just The Star. The Ripper scare was a massive ongoing story, a godsend in context of circulation. Journalists accustomed to a relatively free flow of information from the authorities were suddenly confronted by a situation wherein information was at a premium. It was with regard to this development that editors and their staff were most critical. All of a sudden journalists had to fight for every scrap of information. But this doesn’t mean that these scribes didn’t acquire information. They simply adopted a more proactive, creative approach to intelligence gathering: knocking on doors, canvassing patrons of public houses, loitering about police stations until three or four in the morning and following detectives actively engaged on the case. We know that associates of the victims, whether real or alleged, were paid for information, so it takes no great leap of the imagination to envisage circumstances wherein police officers and administrators were prepared to bolster their relatively meagre earnings in exchange for the odd snippet of inside information. Although my memory of the exact source is a little vague, I think it may have been Sims who confirmed that this was indeed the case. If not, he may certainly be cited as an example of a journalist who saw Macnaghten’s supposedly confidential musings with respect to the Druitt affair. Either way, Jon’s contention that at no time did the press glean inside Ripper-related information is unsustainable to my way of thinking, both in terms of the available evidence and good old-fashioned common sense.

And on the papers, economy rules ...!

Which is precisely why editors would have been prepared to pay for information which in turn would have boosted sales and thus profit.

[Ben]

I still think the excessive focus on the Star is an obfuscation, but no matter. The conclusion that the Star must have been informed by a senior police source is an inescapable one to my mind, based on the fact that it reported, in essence, the same claim made by the Echo, which was to the effect that Hutchinson's account had suffered a "reduced importance" owing to doubts about his credibility. I realise that for some people, the word "discredited" (as used by the Star) may sound a bit scarier and more condemnatory than the wording preferred by the Echo, but phraseology aside, both newspapers were essentially attesting to the same observation.

In the case of the Echo, there can be no doubt that the 13th November report was based on a direct communication between its reporters and a senior police official(s). I explained why this is so about 20 pages ago, and need not do so again. Thus, in order to account for the Star's reporting the same story, we must accept one of the following explanations.

1) They decided to publish a very obscure lie for some unfathomable reason; a lie that didn't aid sales and wasn't remotely self-serving in any way, and yet just happened - unbeknownst to them - to be the truth.

2) They obtained their information directly from the Echo, despite being an obvious rival, and despite being openly critical about them over their reporting of the Annie Farmer attack.

3) They obtained their information from the police, just as the Echo had a couple of days earlier.

Option #3 is the most realistic here by far.

Again, we're not talking about a general practice of police divulging inside information to the press, but it needs to be understood that it certainly happened on occasions. Overall, I think it is.

On detail that stands out significantly for me is that the press complaints of undue reticence on the part of the police only appeared to surface during Warren's tenure as commissioner. The criticisms appeared to be leveled more at his influence than anything else, hence the reference to the police as a "military organization". Unsurprisingly, these seemed to evaporate as soon as Monro took over and - even less surprisingly - it was around this time that the indications of a press-police communication were strongest. That's why I'd question the wisdom of producing lots of anti-police statements from the Star that appeared "pre-Hutchinson". It's only part of the story, and the situation had evidently changed by the 9th November (i.e. prior to Hutchinson's appearing on the scene), thanks to the removal of the principle element to which the Star reporters had occasion to be hostile - Warren.

Virtually all the reports of police refusing to share information with the press pre-date the Echo and Star articles regarding the discrediting/discounting of Hutchinson, and that is extremely significant.

"The police were not allowed to talk with the press about case related material without express permission".

But there are plenty of things that are, strictly speaking, "not allowed" which inevitably happen anyway, human nature being what it is.

Where does that quote come from, by the way?

All the best,
Ben

[Michael W Richards]

The Birmingham suspect was Nicolai Wassili.

One of the most ignored "suspects"...yet the first 2 books put into print about the Whitechapel murders...one in late 1888 by a New York author and the second in early 1889, concluded with a pointed finger at Vassily/Wassili.

Ive always said we need to know more about this fellow Scott, but it would seem he is a mythological creature.

Cheers Scott

[Wickerman]

Echo'ing the tirade against Warren.

This first article published on 1st Oct. 1888 refers to the fact the Met. Police have always acknowledged the need for reticence when dealing with the press. However, since Charles Warren has recently taken charge a lower level of tolerance coupled with a higher level of regimentation have been put in place.

"It is beyond question that the police have grown more wooden since Sir Charles had the control of them; and the conviction is rapidly spreading that we do not absolutely need a brilliant soldier to command the Metropolitan Police Force, but that we must have a man who can outwit the most cunning of criminals. As the police have proved themselves impotent, let them no longer be reticent. They have failed when they kept every scrap of information, as far as possible, to themselves; now let them try another plan, and take the Press and the public into their confidence. They were notoriously at fault when they were scouring the country in pursuit of Jackson, and but for the help of the Press and of an ordinary reader of newspapers that criminal might have been at large to this very hour. Every scrap of information should be promptly published; it is quite possible that some obscure people may be able to make a better use of it than Sir Charles Warren himself."

"The police are increasing their vigilance, they maintain an even more sphinx-like silence;..."

And in the same paper, another example of the police treating the press as a nuisance.

"This morning there were a few policemen there- men who "knew nothing" of the affair, and whose only concern is to tell the public to "Move on," and journalists to gather their information elsewhere. They have had injunctions to treat all reporters, who would fain chastise them, very curtly, and dismiss them without the least information. One of these intelligent officers informed an Echo reporter this morning that the yard of the Club was in the charge of the police and intimated that he would not be allowed even to see the spot where the body was discovered."


Followed by a surprising, but short-lived, turn of events, as perceived by the Echo reporter.

"Since Sunday morning a remarkable change has occurred in the disposition of the officers towards the Press. Information that was hitherto denied is now willingly supplied, possibly at the instigation of the chiefs, who now apparently are ready to admit in an indirect manner that publicity is the best detective."

What follows is an offer by a police officer to take the reporter on a guided tour of the worst slum areas in the East End.
This, was what the reporter interpreted as "a remarkable change", perhaps to his chagrin.


In the same paper, the reporter realized the perceived change of heart of police was merely a singular occurrence.

"I then called at the police-station in Blackman-street, but from the officer there could get no information. He so stolidly obeyed the "orders" he said he had received, that he refused to answer- "Yes" or "No"- whether the man had gone or not, and even to say whether he had really been in custody."


Back to reality...

THE POLICE RETICENCE.

The police, presumably acting under instructions from headquarters, manifest the greatest reserve in communicating information, and at present decline to state either the names given by the prisoners, or the circumstances which led to their arrest.


The Echo then shares an opinion published by The Daily News.

There has been no hearty co-operation with the Press which, on a hundred occasions, has saved the Detective Department from the worst consequences of its own mistakes. The public are fast coming to the belief that it is its military organisation, and the absence of local interest and control, which makes our Metropolitan Police so inefficient in the very first of their duties - that of preventing violence and crime.


As we can see here, this is not a solitary case of the Echo being victimized, but a general attitude held by Metropolitan Police against the press in general.

[Wickerman]

Missed correcting this minor point too.

As Sally observes, it seems odd that you're perfectly happy with the idea of the coroner supplying crucial inside information to the press, but resist at all costs any suggestion that similar information could ever have been obtained from the Metropolitan police.

Yes, but Sally wasn't following the issue from the start.

What initiated this business of the police not being allowed to talk to the press was the requirement that they follow the code created by the former Director, Howard Vincent.
"The police were not allowed to talk with the press about case related material without express permission".

Such restrictions imposed on the Metropolitan Police by the Commissioner/Home Office do not extend to the Coroner's office, or any other institution/individuals involved in the murder inquiry, doctors, hospitals, witnesses, etc.

[Wickerman]

I don't know when or why this discussion became so centred around the Star, ......

It became centered around the Star due to your persistence.
Now we can address the broader issue of the press in general possibly receiving preferential treatment, and the more moderate opinions expressed by other papers like, the Echo.

There is no firm evidence of preferential treatment here either. Yet the likelyhood remains that apart from the usual channels where the police used telegraphed communications through press agencies, some reporters representing such media outlets as the Globe, or The Morning Post, may well have earned a place of preference with some officials in the Met.

Reporters who show open support for the pressures and obstacles endured by the police in pursuit of the Whitechapel murderer are far more likely to develop a friendly relationship with key personnel in the inside.
This is the 'reasonable to assume' angle (Garry), and it is only reasonable to assume in cases where it can be demonstrated that positive support is expressed by the press in the first place.

A Radical newspaper who repeatedly publish caustic criticisms of the Home Office & Scotland Yard, and with strong political anti-establishment support (promoting Home Rule for Ireland) do not find themselves ingratiated with favor by the local authorities. In fact it is quite the opposite which we find to be the case.

[Sally]

Sally, on the other hand has admitted other methods were available for the Star to obtain such information, and suggests that talk of 'proof' is a waste of time:

Jon, I have 'admitted' nothing - there is no need. It is utterly self-evident that the press (not a single united body, you will note, but comprised of individuals all entirely capable of acting for themselves) could have had more than one single means of obtaining information.

I seriously doubt whether any rational person would dispute it, and I don't think I've seen anybody suggest such.

Equally then Sally does not support Ben's position that this issue has been and can be, proven.

Incotroverible proof is a tough call and can be a rare beast in the study of the past. I think, as I've said, that the simplest explanation in some cases is that the press worked with police informants. At the very least, I think certain press reports are highly suggestive of such.

To date, Sally, albeit reluctantly with choice words, has agreed with me,

When I agree with you, Jon, I say so. I think you're playing with semantics here.

I also wonder if this whole exchange has more to do with attempting to demonstrate the plausibility of men with fancy coats than it has to do with the methods of the press.

Ben has isolated himself in this, he has no support.

If that's truly the case, I wonder why we're not seeing more dissenting voices....

[Wickerman]

You're not seriously suggesting, are you, Jon, that a journalist would reveal the name of a police informant who was effectively 'on the take', or that the officer concerned wouldn't take every precaution to guard his identity?

Garry, I think you find yourself in a dilemma.

You appear to want to believe the Star had an inside source, but when challenged you prefer to hide behind the old excuse, it can't be proven for obvious reasons.
So why ardently promote an idea you cannot substantiate?

From your own reserved position I can see you prefer to remain in the 'reasonable to assume' category, admitting it cannot be proven.

Sally, on the other hand has admitted other methods were available for the Star to obtain such information, and suggests that talk of 'proof' is a waste of time:
" I think you're wasting your time there. How can we hope, at this remove, to demonstrate beyond any doubt the personal relationships or special arrangements that existed between members of the press and the police in 1888 - or indeed, the lack of them?"

Equally then Sally does not support Ben's position that this issue has been and can be, proven.

Which has been my argument from the beginning, Ben is wrong to insist that the Star having an inside source has been proven, because it cannot be proven.

My position from day one has been twofold:
1 - that the Star had other methods open to them to arrive at the conclusions they did.
2 - that any claims the Star had an inside source on the progress of the investigation being 'proven', are false.

To date, Sally, albeit reluctantly with choice words, has agreed with me, and you, yourself, have avoided crossing the line to firmly side with Ben.

So we are left with the unavoidable conclusion that my second point remains uncontested, and as to my first point, purely a matter of common sense.

Ben has isolated himself in this, he has no support.

So, we can leave the opinions of the Star to wallow in their own misguided speculations and move to the Echo, a more reliable and less controversial newspaper.

And Christer, I appreciate your experience on the subject.

[Fisherman]

You're not seriously suggesting, are you, Jon, that a journalist would reveal the name of a police informant who was effectively 'on the take', or that the officer concerned wouldn't take every precaution to guard his identity?

If I may? Being a journalist myself, I do have some insight into how the press handles these things nowadays, and I would imagine that it does not differ all that much from how they went about things back then.

Today, the police are sworn to secrecy in many a case, but nevertheless, the information is many a time leaked to the press just the same. And just like you say, Garry, the name of the informant is kept from public knowledge. Sure enough, the informant would take precautions to safeguard his identity too, once again in the manner you propose.

But there is an important difference when it comes to how the Star behaved, if we compare it to todayīs tabloids with a direct line into ongoing inquiries.
If a newspaper today does have the kind of information we speak of, confidential information not meant for the press, they normally present that information with a smug smile; "look here, weīve got all the information, and thatīs why you should buy our paper", sort of.

What they would never do if they DID know, is to complaint about how the police keep the vital information from them. Telling the audience that, is not a very good way to disclose that you are one step ahead of your competitors, is it? Putting it differently, it is a safe way to make sure that you donīt sell more copies of your paper.

This is why I side with Jon on the issue - the Star is pretty adamant that they are left to their own speculations, getting no help from the police. They effectively cast the police in the scoundrelīs role, having set aside what the Star suggests as a rightful demand on behalf of the public to get into the know.

Unless something significant has changed since 1888, Iīd say that this pretty much tells us that the Star did not enjoy any information from any police source that gave them the upper hand informationwise. On the contrary - they were fenced off from that information, and they made that a big deal.

Of course, if there had been any absolute certainty that there was no way that ANY paper would get vital information from the police in these matters, the Star would not have reacted like this, since it would have been moot. It is totally on the cards that it DID happen from time to time.
Apparently not this time, though. And the staff at the Star did not like it one bit.

Thatīs how I read it all. I fail to see that a paper would cover up for their information sources by whining about not getting any information at all. It would be over-elaboration and worse - it would not sell a single copy of the paper! And on the papers, economy rules ...!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

If they were able to reach an inside source at any level, why would they not identify their sources loud and clear, like they used to?

You're not seriously suggesting, are you, Jon, that a journalist would reveal the name of a police informant who was effectively 'on the take', or that the officer concerned wouldn't take every precaution to guard his identity?