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

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

The opportunity for any sort of privacy in that district and environment was remote, such was the extent of overcrowding therein. Even men who occupied single rooms would have struggled to evade the prying eyes of neighbours occupying rooms in the same building, especially when they came home late at night. At least the larger doss houses afforded its patrons the opportunity to become needles in the haystack, courtesy of its large numbers (often 500 per night) and transient population. Such establishments gained their reputation as havens for criminals precisely because of the relative anonymity they provided. The men who duffed up Thomas Sadler would not have retreated into a lodging house had they not been secure in the knowledge that they could blend into the crowd immediately thereafter.

The Victoria Home's kitchen was situated, as I understand, below street level and was not patrolled by a doorman (whose function was to prevent men without a bed ticket from accessing the upper floors). Patrons could come and go at all hours, and would often bring home their not-so-choice meats (usually offal) to cook on the great fire, which also offered an obvious means of permanent disposal. For a small extra cost, men could procure a small cubicle to sleep in, which provided four walls and a visual shield from prying eyes. No obstacle to "solitary vices" there!

Overall, the ripper's likely "post-crime" activities could have been accomplished with ease at the Victoria Home.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
Thanks for the info. I did not know all that detail. I have changed my mind to perhaps.

[Ben]

So every male Jew in his thirties donning a black moustache (numbering in the hundreds, or thousands?) is an automatic suspect for Hutchinson stranger, regardless of the coat?

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. That's the only reason he came to be compared, albeit speciously by the press, to an eyewitness description from that series of crimes. His arrest had nothing to do with his resemblance to Astrakhan. 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.

Regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Does the same apply to press stories accredited to official sources at Scotland Yard?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

One of the reason's this thread was initiated was to deal with the tendency for some to believe everything they read in the press, specifically to do with the direction of the police investigation into the Whitechapel murders.


Sugden wrote: (and allow me to hi-lite the relevant pieces)

"And except in the context of Coroner's inquiries, they were not made privy to the details of police investigations. It cannot be emphasized too strongly, therefore, that however valuable the newspapers might be as sources of contemporary comment and for information on the public aspects of the subject like inquest hearings or street scenes they are not credible sources for the details of the crimes themselves and should not be used as such" (p.112)


And a remark I made at some point which I repeat here:

"The press may provide a valuable contribution with respect to the social atmosphere and detailed descriptions of the local environment. They may even provide truthful, or semi-truthful statements given to them by witnesses. What the press cannot do is provide accurate opinions on the direction of the inquiry or even inside knowledge about the investigation."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

Disinformation comes under the heading of what the press was told.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

Let's not forget that a whole lot of what we now know to be disinformation seeped into the press from some fairly well-placed sources.

It didn't all come from hacks 'n' cops sharing a pint in the the saloon bar of the Frog and Nightgown.

Regards,

Simon

At the risk of being (again!) labelled pedantic, disinformation would not come under the heading of what the press knew, but of what they (incorrectly) thought they knew. :

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

Let's not forget that a whole lot of what we now know to be disinformation seeped into the press from some fairly well-placed sources.

It didn't all come from hacks 'n' cops sharing a pint in the the saloon bar of the Frog and Nightgown.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

The Press, What They Knew And How They Knew It

What they knew:

What they published - augmented by supposition, guesswork, embellishment and opinion.

How they knew it:

What anyone knows can be learned in only five ways: sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. What the press knew was what they saw and what they heard. Knocking on doors, talking to policemen and, perhaps to quite a large extent, eavesdropping - listening in on the conversations between off-duty police officers - whilst frequenting the same watering holes.

[Wickerman]

....They were ostensibly of the same age(ish) and apparently the same ethnicity, and maybe Isaacs had a heavy/slight moustache and pale/dark complexion too! I'd be very surprised if the reported similarity extended beyond that.

So every male Jew in his thirties donning a black moustache (numbering in the hundreds, or thousands?) is an automatic suspect for Hutchinson stranger, regardless of the coat?

There's another argument born of desperation...

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

I think it was observed in the press that Isaacs resembled the suspect with the Astrakhan coat, which doesn't necessarily mean that Isaacs ever wore such a coat - only that he resembled someone who did. They were ostensibly of the same age(ish) and apparently the same ethnicity, and maybe Isaacs had a heavy/slight moustache and pale/dark complexion too! I'd be very surprised if the reported similarity extended beyond that.

I'm led to believe, however, that over the years many of these experts (the FBI included) have come to see things differerently and now think it most likely that the killer was a locally resident slum dweller.

It appears so. The FBI's conclusions in that regard are evinced by John Douglas' preference for a David Cohen type of offender. I'm very surprised that your thinking was ever considered to be at odds with those of other practitioners of geographical profiling. In Kim Rossmo's probability distribution map, the Victoria Home spot is shaded pink to indicate one of the peak areas.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

The opportunity for any sort of privacy in that district and environment was remote, such was the extent of overcrowding therein. Even men who occupied single rooms would have struggled to evade the prying eyes of neighbours occupying rooms in the same building, especially when they came home late at night. At least the larger doss houses afforded its patrons the opportunity to become needles in the haystack, courtesy of its large numbers (often 500 per night) and transient population. Such establishments gained their reputation as havens for criminals precisely because of the relative anonymity they provided. The men who duffed up Thomas Sadler would not have retreated into a lodging house had they not been secure in the knowledge that they could blend into the crowd immediately thereafter.

The Victoria Home's kitchen was situated, as I understand, below street level and was not patrolled by a doorman (whose function was to prevent men without a bed ticket from accessing the upper floors). Patrons could come and go at all hours, and would often bring home their not-so-choice meats (usually offal) to cook on the great fire, which also offered an obvious means of permanent disposal. For a small extra cost, men could procure a small cubicle to sleep in, which provided four walls and a visual shield from prying eyes. No obstacle to "solitary vices" there!

Overall, the ripper's likely "post-crime" activities could have been accomplished with ease at the Victoria Home.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Precisely, Ben. I covered this and several related issues in some detail in my book. At the time my thinking was considered to have been at odds with that of the 'experts'. I'm led to believe, however, that over the years many of these experts (the FBI included) have come to see things differerently and now think it most likely that the killer was a locally resident slum dweller.

Hi Garry
But do you really think the ripper would be bringing his trophies, knife, probably bloody clothes back to a doss house to do with them what he wanted? I find that highly unlikely.

I am not arguing that he didn't live somewhere like the Victoria house, only that if he did, he must have had some other bolt hole where he could go do what he wanted in private after a kill. I think there was a good chance he was masturbating with and possibly eating the organs that he had procured and he could not do that in a doss house IMHO.

[DVV]

Hi Garry

I'm led to believe, however, that over the years many of these experts (the FBI included) have come to see things differerently and now think it most likely that the killer was a locally resident slum dweller.

...which was already Moore's opinion, who replaced Abberline... but too late.

Cheers

[Garry Wroe]

I'm afraid you may have seriously misinterpreted Garry's post if you thought he was arguing against the Victoria Home being a likely location for a ripper's bolt-hole.

Precisely, Ben. I covered this and several related issues in some detail in my book. At the time my thinking was considered to have been at odds with that of the 'experts'. I'm led to believe, however, that over the years many of these experts (the FBI included) have come to see things differerently and now think it most likely that the killer was a locally resident slum dweller.

[Garry Wroe]

Nobody ever suggested that Isaacs wore an Astrakhan coat.

Is that so, Ben? I ask only because I vaguely recall having seen a newspaper piece which referred to Isaacs wearing an astrakhan coat. If not I'm at a loss to understand how Isaacs and Astrakhan could have ever been considered as potentially the same person.