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

[Wickerman]

Good grief, are we really back on this Isaacs nonsense?

Isaacs, as Sally correctly points out, was in prison at the time of the Kelly murder. This was reported in Lloyds in late December, ....

And I suppose you are about to tell us that a newspaper report is correct but the Calendar of Convictions held at the L.M.A. are wrong? - good luck with that!
You might want to debate this with Garry or Sally first, before you respond.

Evidently therefore, the early press reports on interviews with Ms Cusins with regard to Isaacs supposedly "pacing his room" on the night of the murder were revealed to be false.

Evident to whom?
The question running through my mind is, why bother to respond to rubbish like this...

Isaacs lasted five minutes as a suspect, more or less, and all because a few nosey neighbours slagged him off to the police. When he came out of prison AFTER the Kelly murder, ....

Here we have another one of those, "put-up, or shut-up" moments.

The Casebook membership may consider this point only,....when you provide the court record to substantiate your claim (as I have above, all due credit to Roy, et.al.)

Seeing as we both know you cannot, because, as we both also know, no such record exists, because (like your friends at The Star) you just make this stuff up as you go, then we might as well just dispense with this silly counter claim of yours.

It is the worst sort of nonsense to suggest that Hutchinson's story was only ditched when Astrakhan man was identified (in the form of Isaacs!) and cleared of murder.

Cleared of suspicion!

We have the evidence (albeit, via the press) that demonstrates the police were still looking for Astrachan up to the 19th, that much alone scuttles your sadly inaccurate and poorly researched, "Hutchinson Discredited" argument.

What irony, we can actually use the press to prove the press wrong!

Let's think about this more carefully, please. If there was the vaguest consideration that Hutchinson wasn't talking utter bollocks and that Astrakhan did exist, he's a permanent suspect in the killings.

No he would not, if he was, Anderson would have said so,....you ask Garry!

The very fact Anderson made no allusion to a witness like Hutchinson indicates the Astrachan suspect was no longer, a suspect.
Why? - because the police conducted "the fullest inquiry" into the movements of Joseph Isaacs on the night in question, being satisfied that he was in no way culpable, he was charged with the lesser crime.

There is nothing remotely wrong with the Star’s reporting. They didn’t lie for the sheer, deeply illogical thrill of it.

The Star 'guessed' their way through these reports from day to day. We can tell how inaccurate their account was, we have only to read the words of Cox, Prater & Dr Phillips to see that neither of them made any such claim.
Ben, The Star reporter only heard Mrs Cox's testimony, and he left half way through the testimony of Mrs Prater - he was not even present for her whole statement, nor to hear anything spoken by Dr Phillips!

Why believe the opinions of newspaper whose own reporter left the court half way through the proceedings?
This is just more and more sillyness.

Galloway became suspicious of a carrotty-moustachioed man on the street who was, in fact, an undercover detective. Not being aware of this, Galloway alerted a PC who simply fobbed him off with a false excuse for not pursuing this man. Evidently, the PC was aware of the carroty man's identity and understandably didn't want to blow his cover.

The PC told him the truth.
How ever you choose to 'spin' the story makes no difference, the explanation given by the PC is quite consistent with the account given by The Sheffield Independent, on the same date! - The police were still looking for Astrachan!

All this means is that "some" of the authorities continued to place “most reliance” on the Astrakhan description supplied by Hutchinson, evidently in spite of the fact that the statement had been “considerably discounted”.

Duck and weave all you like Ben, the statement stands on its own and is quite clear what it means - no translation necessary.

Hutchinson was believed as a viable witness, at least, through to the 19th November, and quite possibly even afterwards.

There's no escaping this, we have it in print

Now if you will allow me, I will leave the thread once more, hopefully to stay away from the present discussion for some significant time!

All the best,
Fisherman

Aw, c'mon Christer, you know you can't resist taking a peek...

[Sally]

And I suppose you are about to tell us that a newspaper report is correct but the Calendar of Convictions held at the L.M.A. are wrong? - good luck with that!
You might want to debate this with Garry or Sally first, before you respond.

I don't think they need contradict one another Jon, if you think about it properly.

[Sally]

More Morning Advertiser...

I’ve been meaning to respond once more to the erroneous Morning Advertiser claim of non-trade-paperyness for some time; but sadly, recent events have overtaken me. Well then…

Jon – It is…. regrettable that you have felt the need to write to the Morning Advertiser to ask them to confirm a fact which is at the very core of their existence. Your refusal to accept what is historically demonstrable beyond any reasonable, serious doubt is what has led you to that point. A shame. Because of course:

The Morning Advertiser was a trade paper for the pub trade, founded and financed by the Licensed Victuallers. This is an historically ascertained, and demonstrable fact. How else can I phrase that? It is beyond question – and as I’ve said, really not up for debate.

And, by the way, it wasn’t the Cambridge Ancient History that I referred to in my earlier post Jon, (whatever that is) but the Cambridge History of English Literature, published by the Cambridge University Press. You know who they are, right? Oldest publishing house in the world and all that – you know, University of Cambridge? Now maybe it’s just me, but I think I’d prefer to trust in a publication from an academic publishing house than the personal opinion of a poster on a public message forum devoted to Jack the Ripper.

Here's what they say:

The Morning Advertiser, whose literary importance at no time equalled that of its two colleagues. It was first published in 1794 by the London society of licensed victuallers. Naturally, it was devoted to trade interests.

There is no doubt. Quite apart from modern sources that tell us that the Morning Advertiser was a trade paper – and quite apart from the indisputable fact that it is a trade paper; there are numerous contemporary references to the paper describing it as (c.) The organ/mouthpiece/voice/trumpet etc. of the beer/brewing/publican’s/distillery etc. industry.

Numerous.

So, Jon – either everybody else is wrong on this point – and always have been wrong – or you are. Which do you think is more likely?

Oh! Imagine the surprise of the Morning Advertiser when they hear that, in spite of all the apparent evidence to the contrary; No - they really aren’t a trade paper at all!

Here's a little snippet from a contemporary source that may shed a little light on the nature of the MA for you:

Down to 1850 the Morning Advertiser circulated chiefly in public-houses and coffee-houses at the rate of nearly 5,000 copies a day.

Old and New London: Volume 1 (1878)

See? Pub paper. And if that doesn't work for you, there's plenty more where that came from.

[Ben]

And I suppose you are about to tell us that a newspaper report is correct but the Calendar of Convictions held at the L.M.A. are wrong? - good luck with that!

Sally beat me to it, Jon, but no (sigh), you're quite wrong, because the LMA and the Lloyds article are not mutually exclusive.

Here we have another one of those, "put-up, or shut-up" moments.

Indeed we do, and it's probably best if you chose the latter option, because Isaacs was in prison at the time of the murder, meaning he could not have been Astrakhan man or Kelly's killer. I realise how deeply problematic this will be for your fascinating, brand new contention that Isaacs was Astrakhan man, but the fact that nobody besides yourself subscribes to this view kinda tells its own story.

We have the evidence (albeit, via the press) that demonstrates the police were still looking for Astrachan up to the 19th

Nope.

No evidence whatsoever actually.

Hutchinson was, and is, discredited. It happened because of doubts surrounding his credibility, and it resulted in the hunt for Astrakhan being abandoned well in advance of the 19th November.

The Star 'guessed' their way through these reports from day to day. We can tell how inaccurate their account was, we have only to read the words of Cox, Prater & Dr Phillips to see that neither of them made any such claim.

The fact that the Star specified "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" is irrelevant. It demonstrates at the very least that they did NOT support the 1.00am-2.00am suggested by Bond. Anyway, "shortly after 3.00 o'clock" isn't remotely inconsistent with Cox's evidence. She passed the house at 3.00am before returning home, at which point she was in no position to determine whether or not a murder was being committed "shortly" thereafter. The fact that she didn't hear a cry is only evidence that it wasn't loud enough to travel further than her nearest neighbours above (Prater) and Lewis (opposite). Cox lived at the opposite end of the court.

Singling out the Star for inaccuracies is a minority-endorsed, old-hat, out of fashion, fogey-ish practice that is best abandoned in these more enlightened days. The only newspapers to avoid are the obscure ones who printed out-of-date, inaccurate information and/or used ill-informed press agencies. The idea of prioritizing the Sheffield Independent's coverage of the Hutchinson episode over that of the Star or the Echo is beyond preposterous.

There's no escaping this, we have it in print

We have lots of things "in print" that you choose to dismiss for spurious reasons (most notably Hutchinson's discrediting), so I'd think twice before you champion bits of press nonsense just because they're in-print.

Aw, c'mon Christer, you know you can't resist taking a peek...

You can't, that's for sure. But my aftershave is pretty alluring, so resistance is futile.

Meanwhile...

Back off topic...

Frank Leander's initial response was neutral. It was most emphatically not a vote in favour of a Toppy-witness match. He was not, by his own admission, able to offer an expert opinion on the signatures in light of the fact that they were sent to him as emailed, scanned copies, which, as any document examiner will tell you, is not remotely sufficient for the purposes of a proper comparison. Therefore, if he later added anything further on the subject that was of a more "pro-Toppy" bent, I'm afraid that would drastically undermine the irrefutable neutrality of his original position.

There were three Hutchinson statements appended to the witness statement, and only one was submitted to Leander - the one that the Toppy-supporters decided was most like Toppy's. The other two look nothing like any of Toppy's known signatures, and in fact, resemble some other 1911 census "George Hutchinson" signatures far more closely. Garry's point was simply that Leander should have been made aware of this, and been supplied with all three signatures. I'd also add that the submitted signatures were presented in such a way as to convey the impression that they were the same size and written at the same angle, which was very far from reality.

The bottom line is that is Leander's wasn't an expert opinion - as he acknowledged himself - and can't possibly be construed as such, in the absence of the originals. If anyone wants to remedy this, we don't need anymore "discussion", because it'll just be repetitive and vituperative. We instead need action - an actual comparison of the signatures by an expert, that is if Sue Iremonger's wasn't considered good enough (which I strongly maintain it is).

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

By 1858 circulation of the Morning Advertiser was second only to that of The Times.

The Times, 16th September 1858—



Nice going for what started out in the 18th Century as as "The Publicans Morning Advertiser".

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

expert

Hello Ben.

"We instead need action - an actual comparison of the signatures by an expert"

Excellent suggestion.

1. Any idea of an expert comfortable to both sides?

2. Perhaps some of us could subscribe a few pounds?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I don't think they need contradict one another Jon, if you think about it properly.

By all means, lets dispense with vague insinuations, if you choose to insist Isaacs was under arrest when you claim he was, bring forth the official record.

Care to pick up the gauntlet?

[Wickerman]

The Morning Advertiser was a trade paper for the pub trade, founded and financed by the Licensed Victuallers. This is an historically ascertained, and demonstrable fact.

It would help immensely if you could stay focused.

The Morning Advertiser, as I stated from the start, was financed by the Licensed Victuallers, but as a mainstream morning newspaper, sold and distributed as such, not an, 'over the counter trade "rag" for the brewery".
The term 'Trade Paper' in this context only means it was published by the Trade, it is still a Newspaper.

True Trade Papers (meaning their content was entirely devoted to the business of the breweries), were periodicals, weekly, bi-weekly, often monthly, but a true Trade Paper does not publish daily, the interest simply does not exist.

The Publicans Morning Advertiser has changed from what it was in the 19th century, - today, it is a weekly magazine, it is no longer a Daily Newspaper, but a weekly Trade magazine.

The Morning Advertiser was a mainstream daily newspaper, and everyone at the time knew it as such.
Because a newspaper carried advertisements for the trade does not make it a Trade Paper. The content of the Morning Advertiser was devoted to News, not the interests of the publican.

There really is a difference you fail to grasp. Today's Weekly Publicans Morning Advertiser is not in any way the same as the original Daily Newspaper of the 19th century.

[Wickerman]

Indeed we do, and it's probably best if you chose the latter option, because Isaacs was in prison at the time of the murder, meaning he could not have been Astrakhan man or Kelly's killer.

This is not an issue which you can sing and dance your way out of the corner. If Isaacs was in prison on 8th Nov. the record would have shown it.

The ball is in your court to "put-up or shut-up", lets be seeing the goods.

No pressure, I don't expect you to raise this issue again until you have something more than your opinion and an inaccurate news article - lets see the official record.
In fact, why don't you enlist Sally to help you out seeing as you are both on the hook for this.

[DVV]

Hello Ben.

"We instead need action - an actual comparison of the signatures by an expert"

Excellent suggestion.

1. Any idea of an expert comfortable to both sides?

2. Perhaps some of us could subscribe a few pounds?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Problem is that he will need to work on the original documents.
Just like Sue Iremonger did.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Wickerman

Aw, c'mon Christer, you know you can't resist taking a peek...


Very true! I am not even trying to resist that. I do not, however, wish to actively use the thread if I can help it.
When things are said about me and my stance that run contrary to the truth ... well, then I canīt help it.

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

documents

Hello David. Thanks.

"Problem is that he will need to work on the original documents."

Are none remaining?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Up to six o'clock yesterday evening no further arrests had been made in London, and there had been no further scares in the Whitechapel district.
The police are working diligently upon the clue furnished by George Hutchinson.
Judging from a communication made by Mr. Galloway, a clerk employed in the City and living at Stepney, no reliance is now placed upon the statement made by the woman Cox, and the detectives rely almost exclusively upon Hutchinson's description of the supposed murderer.
Manchester Courier, 16 Nov. 1888.

[Wickerman]

And by way of balance, the prestigious Morning Post ran the same article as above, yet appended their report with:

"Many persons competent to form a reliable opinion upon the matter still believe that Cox accurately described a man who was in the company of the woman Kelly at midnight, and therefore they question the wisdom of the police in relying exclusively upon Hutchinson's information."

An interesting observation which only consolidates our knowledge that the press understood the police to be still following the Hutchinson line of inquiry as late as the 16th of November, 1888.

[DVV]

Hello David. Thanks.

"Problem is that he will need to work on the original documents."

Are none remaining?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

No, I mean it's not such an easy task.

Cheers