The probability of being fed disinformation

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Simon!

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

There was no Jack the Ripper.

You should be able to work out the rest.

Regards,

Simon

Would you be so kind as to lay it all out for me? If you don't want to tread on the thread you can pm me or whatever you see fit. Many thanks in advance.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

Trust me, it would take too long to lay it all out for you.

Let me just say that all you need to know to work it out for yourself is that Jack the Ripper is exactly the same story as The Emperor's New Clothes.

Regards,

Simon

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Eh.

That's a cop out. Bullet points at least please. I am not closed to the possibility that "JTR" is/was a construct. But .... Some defense of your position would be much appreciated. Many thanks in advance.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

Please share your ideas on JtR being a construct.

We'll go from there.

Regards,

Simon

[Mayerling]

Disinformation would not surprise me, but you would have to stretch the definition of "disinformation" a bit. It is not just lying for the sake of lying. It is also giving information with part hidden (as most police departments around the globe still have to do - bits of clues that they know and the killer may know, but are witheld from the public for the sake of letting the killer incriminate him or herself. Also there is the matter that the "disinformation" may include ideas of the investigation that subsequently are shown to be incorrect or running into roadblocks that were not foreseen. When suspect "A" is caught and arrested, the police look into that suspect's antecedents and movements, and if they don't fit they have to admit they were wrong. But their investigation into suspect "A" may have been flawed, and so we are left wondering if someone is covering up for suspect "A" or were the police sloppy in their work. As for a planned campaign of disinformation, it is possible but we cannot claim it was really widespread.

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

The idea of disinformation is a giant and scary leap into the unknown for a lot of Ripperologists, mainly because over the past century they have been indoctrinated into believing that someone known as Jack the Ripper actually prowled the streets of Whitechapel.

Regards,

Simon

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Crudely

You have one individual that, just for example, killed Polly and Annie only. Previous murders were just random violence. Call the murderer Jacob Isenschmidt. Stride is murdered and attributed to that killer when it is just another random act of violence. Eddowes is murdered for some reason unknown and made to look like a victim of the same person. "MJK" also made to appear that way. Later victims were by let's say curious folk or fans of the Ripper of something of the sort. Basically the reason there was a Jack the Ripper was because people wanted there to be one. Some people anyways. And they perpetuate it for their own benefit. Crude but one general idea.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

Great stuff. Now you're cooking with gas.

Except for the fact that the person who murdered Polly did not necessarily murder Annie.

Turn up the gas.

Regards,

Simon

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Simon. Give and take.

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

Great stuff. Now you're cooking with gas.

Except for the fact that the person who murdered Polly did not necessarily murder Annie.

Turn up the gas.

Regards,

Simon

You of course realise that one killer per victim for each murder is less likely than a single killer of at least a few? Don't want to derail thread. If you wish we can move over to the 4 or more unreasonable thread. I started it and nothing is off topic there. Just a hop and a rip over there.

[Wickerman]

Hello all,

I wanted to start a thread that discussed the probability of we, the general public, have been fed disinformation down the years from official sources, in other words The Home Office, The Met Police, The City Police, etc.

Here I am talking from 1888 onwards, and many will have noted with some dfegree of surprise the constant "changing" of "retired" high ranking policemen's views down the years, some claiming the truth, some claiming that the truth will never be known, some claiming that previous high ranking policemen did not tell the truth, etc etc etc.

Hi Phil.
I think I'm not too clear on what is meant by "we the public" being fed misinformation.
The police as a rule did not talk directly to the public, except by way of an occasional interview (you are talking post 1888?), and even then, they gave us nothing important about the case beyond their own personal opinion on who the killer may have been.

At the time of the murders the press often worded some of their news releases in such a way as to make the public think the press knew what was going on behind closed doors at Scotland Yard, they of course did not. So I wonder if this source of misinformation is what you may be alluding to. This though would not be a case of the authorities releasing misinformation, but the press in their continuous endeavour to publish a case-related story which had a degree of appeal for their readers.

I have no doubt that a variety of police officials adopted a particular "type" for who the killer may be, but this only demonstrates that no firm opinion existed at the time. I wouldn't call this "misinformation" though, as in most cases these opinions were only expressed years later.

Aside from an occasional comment by a PC to a reporter which was intended to either embarrass the man, or send him off on a wild goose chase, I don't think anything accurate was shared between the police and the press about the ongoing investigation.
There were exceptions, such as when a particular line of inquiry had been concluded, the police would share the details of the extent of the search with the press, I'm thinking about the house-to-house enquiries, typically because, they had found nothing, so there was no harm in telling the press all about it.

[bolo]

Hello Phil, all,

my question is, what was so important about the murder cases of 1888/89 that higher-ups like Anderson saw fit to change the story a little a then a little more (IF they did it, that is)?

The only answer I have is that the higher-ups came up with story twists of their own because of injured pride. It bugged them that there were several unsolved cases that fell within their active years, so they went with the conclusions that fit them best, not necessarily the ones that made the most sense.

I'm still unsure about how the Special Branch fits into the picture. As far as I know, it was founded in the wake of Fenian activity in the UK and USA, and most of the high-ranking people like Warren, Anderson or Monro who were involved in the murder investigation were also involved in SB in one way or another. I think their positions would have enabled them to filter or alter the facts by using the SB infrastructure for their own purposes. However, who would have benefitted from such a misuse of power?

Maybe the answer lies in the political struggles of the era.

Best regards,

Boris

[Simon Wood]

Hi Digalittledeeperwatson,

I do not of course realise any such thing.

Kindly explain why one killer per victim is less likely than a single killer of at least a few.

Regards,

Simon

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Simon.

Two things then I'm going to cease interrupting this thread. 1.Similarities in the murders. 2. Similarities in the victims. Those alone are enough to suggest a singular killer might have been at work. Simply similar type of victims killed in a similar type way just might mean the same killer. It's ludicrous I know. Especially when compared to... Oh wait, not sure cause you won't be forthcoming.

[lynn cates]

dynamite

Hello Boris.

"most of the high-ranking people like Warren, Anderson or Monro who were involved in the murder investigation were also involved in SB in one way or another. I think their positions would have enabled them to filter or alter the facts by using the SB infrastructure for their own purposes. However, who would have benefited from such a misuse of power?"

Don't forget the dynamite business from the previous year. An investigation would have revealed some unsavoury details.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hi Jeff,

The idea of disinformation is a giant and scary leap into the unknown for a lot of Ripperologists, mainly because over the past century they have been indoctrinated into believing that someone known as Jack the Ripper actually prowled the streets of Whitechapel.

Regards,

Simon

Yeah, it requires a massive leap of faith. As do most things which have little or no supporting evidence of worth.

Monty