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

[DRoy]

Jon,

You could very well be right, although I don't think so. I find it difficult to believe it's fiction or that anyone would purposely make up such a story. The article isn't just about 'The Ripper' which makes it more real to me. The inventor of such a story you'd think stick with the WM instead of going in all sorts of directions.

It's a bit too conspiracy theory for me Jon to suggest it a hoax.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Jon,

Regarding Harris, whomever he may be, still shared with the reporter information about unsolved murders. Why else use an alias unless he felt he was saying things he shouldn't? The entire article is a lie?

Cheers
DRoy

Hi DRoy.

A reporter will suggest an alias as a cover for the fact the story is bogus. He couldn't in truth credit the story to a detective who can expose him.

Sorry, I knew you wouldn't appreciate my comment but, I call it as I see it

[DRoy]

Jon,

Regarding Harris, whomever he may be, still shared with the reporter information about unsolved murders. Why else use an alias unless he felt he was saying things he shouldn't? The entire article is a lie?

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Dave.
I believe the words chosen by Garry were "most likely" and "we have powerful confirmation as to the viability of the Victoria Home as the Ripper's lair."

In truth Harris did not display enough case knowledge to even outshine the London press, one should really question the origin of the story.

Of course, for anyone backing a horse that runs from the Victoria Home stables then....

[DVV]

Don't reverse things, Jon.
Unless I've misunderstood, the question was : Would a large lodging house such as the VH be a good hide for JtR ?
And the answer is : yes, apparently it was worth searching there - but difficult, precisely because it would have been a very good place to stay, for the murderer. He would have been "just a number" there.
Not to say he couldn't live elsewhere, of course.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

The article was published in 1891, but the described tour is from September 1889.

As you have noted, Moore 1899 had an outlandish theory in mind. So he's not saying that the murderer couldn't be a dosser.
You have also noted that in 1889, Moore's opinion refers to vast lodging houses, where dossers were "just numbers".
It may directly refer to the VH, and at least, it includes the VH.

Cheers

It is likely a fair bet, and an obvious avenue for investigation, that if you are looking for a male killer you would include the locations where the most men are gathered together in one place.

You can hardly ignore the lodging-houses, but in the same vein there is no reason we should suppose that because they were targeted that the police thought this was where the killer fled to as opposed to a private dwelling.

In fact the opposite is true, after the double murder wasn't there 80,000 handbills printed for distribution throughout private houses addressed, "to the occupier", across the East End?

The investigation was far broader than some 'theorists' prefer to acknowledge.

[DVV]

The article was published in 1891, but the described tour is from September 1889.

As you have noted, Moore 1899 had an outlandish theory in mind. So he's not saying that the murderer couldn't be a dosser.
You have also noted that in 1889, Moore's opinion refers to vast lodging houses, where dossers were "just numbers".
It may directly refer to the VH, and at least, it includes the VH.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Jon, I think we can forgive him for having been the first disciple of Trevor.

So, we are not exclusively shackled to the possibility that the killer only inhabited lodging-houses?

I didn't think so..

[DVV]

Jon, I think we can forgive him for having been the first disciple of Trevor.

[Wickerman]

Ok Dave, and thanks for the link.

So, on the subject of where they might find the murderer, you agreed with Garry that it was Moore's opinion that the killer would inhabit any one of the local lodging-houses.

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

Cheers

So yes, in the 1891 foreign article Moore apparently said words to that effect:
"Anyway, it is in these lodging houses that Mr. Moore expects to find the elusive criminal."

Well, in 1899 Moore is apparently quoted as declaring:
"Well, so far as I can make out, he was a mad foreign sailor,who paid periodical visits to London on board ship. He committed the crimes and then went back to his ship and remembered nothing about them."

So, where do we go from here?

[DVV]

Here it is, Jon - you'll find the translation by Chris Scott post #5

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3900

[Wickerman]

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

Ok Dave, then possibly one I have not seen, do you have a copy?

[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

[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.

[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.