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

[DRoy]

Window dressing perhaps?

We do know reporters were writing about Whitechapel across the world, the premise of the story about a visiting reporter is possibly true. When we originally discussed this the main point of controversy was whether police officials shared inside information with the press.
Nothing Harris shares with the reporter can be classed as inside information, and as this guided tour around Whitechapel is the central theme to the story then we should perhaps question the words of the guide.

Jon,

I have to agree, there is very little said that would be considered inside info. However, 'Harris' does as has already been said give at least his opinion as to where 'Jack' may have lived. Again, if it is Reid then we do have a top man's opinion. As a top cop if it was his opinion then it would have been investigated. I believe that to be an important piece of inside info since it was a quite specific place.

That being said, I think it would be bold to say 'Jack' did live there as even Harris makes it sound as an opinion not a fact.

Cheers
DRoy

[Ben]

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

We have done, Jon. Many many times.

Our first example is the revelation that Hutchinson was discredited owing to doubts surrounding his credibility, coupled with the late presentation of his evidence and non-attendance at the inquest, as reported in the the Echo on the 13th November and in subsequent reports from the same paper. This revelation is irrefutably accurate as I've demonstrated ad nauseam, and I'll simply copy and paste my oft-provided explanation if you're bored enough or stubborn enough to waste time challenging it with futilty yet again.

The second is the Lawende description which was irrefutably and provably leaked to the Times and published on 2nd October, well in advance of its intended "official" publication in the Police Gazette on 19th of the same month, and despite an obvious attempt on the part of the police to suppress this description from appearing at the inquest. (And here again, please give my the excuse I zealously crave to repeat this in detail all over again if you've that sort of time to waste).

Here we have two excellent examples of what you like to term "proprietary information" being divulged by the police to the press, which could not have been "sourced through idle gossip with a lowly constable", and could not feasibly have been "pieced together by reporters following behind the detectives on the streets" either. Both of them wholly and utterly refute your cloyingly naive, hopelessly unimaginative, and just plain WRONG assertion that reporters never obtained case-related information from detectives. You're also fantasizing if you think that Messrs Sudgen and Curtis have ever adopted your ludicrously absolutist and entrenched position on this subject.

Then you're off again on the Isaacs when you ought really to have left that infernal nonsense alone long ago.

You've lost that round, irrefutably so.

The initial police interest in Isaacs had absolutely nothing to do with Astrakhan or Hutchinson's account. I'm quite aware that Mary Cusins and possibly Cornelius Oakes had alerted the police about Isaacs' alleged activities at the time of the murder, and that this pre-dated his theft of a watch. However, these suspicions related to his alleged threats of violence towards all women over the age of 17, his alleged pacing of the floor at night, as well as the completely mistaken belief that he departed the area after the Kelly murder. These were more than adequate grounds for police interest, and they had nothing to do with Hutchinson or any silly coat with Astrakhan silly trimmings. When Isaacs eventually did return to his lodgings, he stole a watch for which he was arrested, and the police used this as an obvious opportunity to investigate him a suspect in the Whitechapel murders (acting solely on the basis of Cusins/Oakes' information). Only then did the press cotton on and note what they considered to be a similarity with Hutchinson's description - NOT that they wore the same coat, but merely that Isaacs resembled (in undisclosed respects) someone who wore an Astrakhan coat. At no stage was it ever so much as vaguely insinuated that the police were interested because of Hutchinson's account - ever.

It later transpired that Isaacs was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder, which means that many of Cusins' accusations (which formed the basis for police interest in him in the forst place) were revealed to be without foundation. Whether she confused her times and dates or conjured up a tall tale to rid the area of an undesirable petty criminal is anyone's guess - and I'd guess the latter - but the point is that Isaacs could not have been "pacing his room" on the night of the Kelly murder, nor could have disappeared afterwards. He was, according to the article in Lloyds, in custody at the time for stealing a coat, which neatly explains why he only returned to his lodgings on the 5th (because it coincided with his release from prison), and explains - even more neatly - why the police lost interest in him for the ripper murders. He had a prison alibi.

Bang goes the entire original non-Hutchinson-related basis for suspicion in the first place.

And yet despite all this; despite the fact that he was obviously just an opportunistic homeless theif who was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder according to the best extant evidence, you wish to turn him into Astrakhan man, which he definitely wasn't and could not have been. You even make the egocentric claim that I've produced "nothing to argue against it", as though yours was somehow the mainstream-accepted default position on the subject, as opposed to what it really is: a highly controversial, borderline impossible, very unpopular, very weird idea that pretty much only you and the Joseph Lis author supports.

[Ben]

And yes...

"Inspector Harris" was very probably Edmund Reid.

An article attributed to Inspector Reid quotes him as saying: "The whole of the murders were done after the public-houses were closed", which tallies well with Inspector Harris' views. Also, note the congruity between Reid's known statement in 1912...

"My opinion is that the perpetrator of the crimes was a man who was in the habit of using a certain public-house, and of remaining there until closing time. Leaving with the rest of the customers, with what soldiers call 'a touch of delirium triangle,' he would leave with one of the women. "My belief is that he would in some dark corner attack her with the knife and cut her up".

...and the observations of Harris in 1889:

"Now, I believe he gets to drinking in the public houses and the fury comes upon him while he's in liquor. Then he goes out and murders somebody"

Very similar indeed.

A 43-year-old with grey hair may be easily confused with someone of 50 years or older - that's just obvious. It's preposterous to argue otherwise. Where is your evidence that "when Reid retired in 1896 he still had black hair."?

If you're seriously suggesting that a few errors of detail in a newspaper report means that the entire report is a fabrication - which is just an impossibly ludicrous and nonsensical thing to suggest - then you ought to re-think your approach. Why not read some of Abberline's opinions as reported in the press? According to him, the Whitechapel murders were the work of an "expert surgeon", and that the witnesses "all agree" that the killer was a "foreign-looking man". I suppose that means the paper's informant can't have been Abberline? It must have been an imposter, or the entire article is a press invention?

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."

This merely explains how the paper came to be in contact with a senior investigator working the case - in this instance it was a family connection. It also provides a good example of the way in which certain newspapers may find themselves quite capable of extracting information directly from reliable police sources. They just had to be a bit resourceful.

You also seem to be forgetting that the journalist responsible for the article in question deliberately suppressed and altered details in order to preserve the anonymity of the "inspector", so to argue that some details don't quite fit Reid is to miss the point of the exercise.

[Wickerman]

Ben.
It becomes increasingly difficult to find anything of substance in your emotional ravings, being clearly wrong is nothing new, but when you stoop to deliberately misrepresenting factual documentation then, why should anyone waste their time reading anything you write.

[Wickerman]

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

I didn't think so..

Again, typical of the press, no mention of from where this belief originates:

WHERE THE MURDERER IS SAID TO LIVE.

"A belief is gaining ground that the murderer is not a frequenter of common lodging houses, but he occupies a single room, or perhaps finds refuge in an empty warehouse. He is supposed to make his home somewhere between Middlesex street and Brick lane."
Evening News, 2 Oct. 1888.

[Wickerman]

As different as chalk and cheese...

"The conduct of the City Police authorities in contradistinction with that of the Metropolitan Police in connection with the latest discovered murders is being freely commented on by all sections of the Press. The murder in Mitre square being within the city boundaries proper comes under the jurisdiction of the city police, who have given every facility to the Press in their unpleasant labours; while their metropolitan brethren who have charge of the Berner street outrage are by no means, it is said, anxious to assist newspaper men, but on the other hand rather frustrate them in their inquiries."
Irish Times, 2 Oct. 1888.

[Wickerman]

And yet.... when an official source is a trusted source (the City), how trustworthy is the information they share with the press?

"A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded."
Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct. 1888.

[Michael W Richards]

And yet.... when an official source is a trusted source (the City), how trustworthy is the information they share with the press?

"A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded."
Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct. 1888.

Dis, or Misinformation was and is used regularly by the Police when speaking with the Press Jon, its one reason that we cant trust that all the official statements were given with the intention of illuminating. In many cases they were likely made to keep the press from looking to closely, to misdirect the attention of the news readers, or to prevent the killer from learning what they knew.

Since it seems to me that they knew very little about who was killing the women that Fall...maybe some is just Misdirection.

Cheers

[caz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
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.

I must admit, Garry and Ben, I was being a bit flippant. But I'm pretty sure I didn't misinterpret what Garry said about the minority of serial killers doing it virtually on their own doorsteps, while most of them put a bit of distance between their home base and killing field.

Incidentally, have you found Hutchinson at the Victoria Home - or even in the Whitechapel area - as far back as August 1888?

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

I must admit, Garry and Ben, I was being a bit flippant. But I'm pretty sure I didn't misinterpret what Garry said about the minority of serial killers doing it virtually on their own doorsteps, while most of them put a bit of distance between their home base and killing field.

It's not really a question of distance, Caz, more an issue of time. Minimum effort for maximum reward. Look at the driving time invested by the modern mobile serialist in the execution of his crimes and this will provide a fairly good indication as to the distance Jack the Ripper would have covered on foot to achieve the same objective.

Incidentally, have you found Hutchinson at the Victoria Home - or even in the Whitechapel area - as far back as August 1888?

No. But then the present discussion was unrelated to Hutchinson. It was about the viability of the Victoria Home or a similar such establishment as the Ripper's operational base.

[Wickerman]

Dis, or Misinformation was and is used regularly by the Police when speaking with the Press Jon, its one reason that we cant trust that all the official statements were given with the intention of illuminating. In many cases they were likely made to keep the press from looking to closely, to misdirect the attention of the news readers, or to prevent the killer from learning what they knew.

Since it seems to me that they knew very little about who was killing the women that Fall...maybe some is just Misdirection.

Cheers

You make a good point Michael. Rob House made a suggestion along these lines in his book about Kosminski. That the police were known to spread misinformation.
This is a third point to consider.

The first point was to suggest that certain members of the press obtained reliable inside information on the murder investigation from Scotland Yard.

My counter to this is that Scotland Yard gave away no important inside information, that those who believe this (just because the papers say so!) are being mislead.

So your point is another consideration in favor of my position.

[Garry Wroe]

My counter to this is that Scotland Yard gave away no important inside information, that those who believe this (just because the papers say so!) are being mislead.

Who exactly has stated that Scotland Yard was the source for leaked information, Jon?

I would encourage you to read some of the accounts written by journalists of the period, especially the descriptions of some of their more dubious information gathering strategies. You would also do well to remember Major Smith's recollection of the Lusk kidney affair and his suspicion that one of his underlings had leaked information to newsmen who initially he assumed were making mischief at his expense.

Again, Jon, your contention that policemen did not sell information to the press may well be entrenched, but it is not supported by the historical evidence.

[Wickerman]

Who exactly has stated that Scotland Yard was the source for leaked information, Jon?

The claims are mostly attributed to "the police". It is necessary to make the distinction between the City, who had a more amiable relationship with the press, and the Met/Scotland Yard. Hence, my earlier comment.

Again, Jon, your contention that policemen did not sell information to the press may well be entrenched, but it is not supported by the historical evidence.

Please Garry, allow me to be quite specific - in bold.

The debates here center on the press obtaining reliable inside information on the direction of the Whitechapel murder investigation, from the Met/Scotland Yard.

The topic is quite specific as to the subject, otherwise certain theories which hinge on this belief will find no support.

[Garry Wroe]

Then please, Jon, allow me to be quite specific. My previous post was a direct response to your own observations:-

The first point was to suggest that certain members of the press obtained reliable inside information on the murder investigation from Scotland Yard.

My counter to this is that Scotland Yard gave away no important inside information, that those who believe this (just because the papers say so!) are being mislead.

So if you are averse to someone challenging your statements, Jon, it might be better not to make them in the first place.

[Wickerman]

Garry.
My position was stated very early on.

In response I am presented with scenario's where one detective is playing tour guide for the press and in consequence providing inaccurate information, or another police official is describing the history and customs of the Metropolitan police, and a third relating his memoirs to a newspaper, neither of which have anything to do with the Met/SY providing "reliable inside information about the murder investigation to the press".

I have asked for examples from more than yourself but to date no-one has come up with anything to contest my claim.

Let me remind you where this all began. It was claimed that the Echo (Nov. 14) received inside information when they approached Commercial St. P.S. to inquire about the 2nd Hutchinson article, that the police gave them inside information that both descriptions (1st/2nd) came from the same source.

This was not inside information, both reports emanated through the Central News, the police only shared with the Echo what was already public knowledge.
(ie, the fact a public agency are able to provide the information means the information is in the public domain).

So I am not talking about memoirs, off-duty tour guides, or history lessons.
The question pertains specifically to the Whitechapel murder investigation and the relationship between Scotland Yard/The Met. and the press.

The relationship between the City police and the press are not under dispute.