Census

[Ashkenaz]

I am posting one of five episodes on jtr at youtube.

A police scientist believes that jtr was a local man. He also believes that it is possible to predict fairly accurately where the fiend lived.

The scientist believes jtr lived in Flower and Dean Street, Thrawl Street, or Fashion street.

Can anyone tell us when the census closest to 1888 was ? and perhaps the ones either side.

If the census was properly documented, and the scientist is correct, then we may have jtr's name,or pseudonym, as part of a long list of names.

Enjoy the video:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnzo0JiX4OY&feature=related

[Celesta]

HI Ashkenaz.

Try 1881 and 1891. They were every ten years.

Best,

Cel

[Ashkenaz]

HI Ashkenaz.

Try 1881 and 1891. They were every ten years.

Best,

Cel

Thanks. If jtr was a Jewish guy who came to London in the early 1880's then the census of 1881 might miss him. And of course he may have ben dead by 1891 !

Worth a look though. From where might we get this data? Any ideas anyone ?

[Dan Norder]

I wish people wouldn't post videos online that they don't own the rights to.

And, for the record, living on Flower and Dean Street, Thrawl Street or Fashion street doesn't exactly narrow things down by much, even if that profiler is correct. That'd be hundreds if not thousands of people, with all the doss houses and so forth in the area.

[GregBaron]

Census

Yeah, I agree with Dan..........I don't think it takes a string theory physicist to claim JTR lived in the neighborhood........and I also wouldn't get too excited about the census............others have pointed out the difficulties the Polish Jewish names caused...........for example morphing from Kosminki...to Kaminsky or oh what the heck, let's just call him Cohen........the accuracy is debatable..........and what if we do get a list of 10,000 with JTR's name on it.............whoop dee doo..........!


Sincerely,

Greg

[Ashkenaz]

I wish people wouldn't post videos online that they don't own the rights to.
.

I dont much care what you'd like. And as for ownership, its in the public domain.

And, for the record, living on Flower and Dean Street, Thrawl Street or Fashion street doesn't exactly narrow things down by much, even if that profiler is correct. That'd be hundreds if not thousands of people, with all the doss houses and so forth in the area.

Nonsense, it narrows it down considerably. A list of everyone living in those few streets at the time, would be considerably smaller, than a list of everyone living in Britain at that time.

. What I said was correct. If we had the names of everyone living in those streets then, and the geographical profiler is correct, then we likely would have jtr's name or pseudonym

[Ashkenaz]

.........and what if we do get a list of 10,000 with JTR's name on it.............whoop dee doo..........!


Sincerely,

Greg

You cant figure out the advantage of having a list of names, one of which belongs to jtr.. ?

Dont give up the day job...

[claire]

Hallo (from someone more familiar with official statistics than she'd sometimes like [currently doing yet another review for yet another government of official statistics ]).

I'm all for narrowing down possibilities, but beyond the issue of there still being a considerable number of possibly (for which read, likely, as others have pointed out) incorrect names, it is optimistic in the extreme to suppose that everyone in the area would have been enumerated. My husband (dreadful census expert) tells me that, even then, the enumerator's job would be to identify who was resident in the building on the census date...hence, this category 'lodger' that we see often includes people only visiting. Those people with homes/'homes' in the area mightn't necessarily be in them (and hence should technically pop up on the appropriate records for another district/parish, but don't always). Plus we have to rely on the individual collecting and recording the data for its completeness and accuracy (and, these days, those who enter it all into a database)...for the most part, then, census data is really rather 'dirty.' All this is a long-winded way of saying that we can't rely on the census to provide 100% accurate, disaggregated data (ie. data that identifies an individual) of everyone in the area at the time.

If you still fancy a go, as others on here have noted elsewhere, ancestry.co.uk has access to the censuses (no, I don't own that domain, but you know, in the spirit of research ); the 1881 one is free. Goodness only knows what you'd do with the resulting lists or how you'd go about narrowing it down (some colleagues of mine used to say there were criminogenic names...'Jason' was mooted as one, 'Wayne' another...maybe it's possible to figure out which were those names in the LVP Tee hee).

[Sam Flynn]

some colleagues of mine used to say there were criminogenic names...'Jason' was mooted as one, 'Wayne' another...maybe it's possible to figure out which were those names in the LVP...

...that'd be "John" or "George", then

Re. 1881 or 1891 - it's worth remembering that we stand to be confounded not only by the ten-year periodicity of the censuses themselves, but also by the fact that many of the residents of Whitechapel and Spitalfields moved from doss to doss comparatively frequently, without a permanent base of their own. They also went wherever work took them, from district to district and sometimes out of town completely. Even if there had been a census in 1888, we'd still need a modicum of luck to catch Jack "at home".

[Dan Norder]

I dont much care what you'd like. And as for ownership, its in the public domain.

It's in the public domain?! How on earth could you even come up with that idea? Don't use legal terms you don't understand.... or if you do think you understand the concept, please explain exactly WHY you think it's in the public domain, because it's clearly not.

The bottom line is that video was created by people who own it and control it, and unless you have their permission to post it you are stealing from them just as sure as if you'd taken money from someone else's wallet when they weren't looking.

[Ashkenaz]

The bottom line is that video was created by people who own it and control it, and unless you have their permission to post it you are stealing from them just as sure as if you'd taken money from someone else's wallet when they weren't looking.

The people who created the video, have placed it where anyone can view it. That's why its at youtube. Its placed there with just that in mind.

How on earth do you imagine I have stolen it ? I have merely re-directed interested people to that site where they can view it.

That is comparable to stealing money from someones wallet ? What an absurd remark.

[Ashkenaz]

Hallo (from someone more familiar with official statistics than she'd sometimes like [currently doing yet another review for yet another government of official statistics ]).

Hi Claire, nice to have a statistician in here with us

there still being a considerable number of possibly (for which read, likely, as others have pointed out) incorrect names, it is optimistic in the extreme to suppose that everyone in the area would have been enumerated.

Yes there may be incorrect names recorded, or miss-spelled names. It may also be likely as you say, that not everyone was recorded. However, I'm confident the census was undertaken by the staff, as professionally as possible under the circumstances.

Imagine if it were your job at the time. Would you go around carelessly entering any old thing ? I think not. If discovered, you would lose your job. Unemployment was a life threatening thing in those days. I am confident they did the best job possible under the circumstances.

My husband (dreadful census expert) tells me that, even then, the enumerator's job would be to identify who was resident in the building on the census date...hence, this category 'lodger' that we see often includes people only visiting.

JTR may have been a visitor at an address on the night in question, we just don't know. If he was there as a visitor, then we'd have his name in the list.

Those people with homes/'homes' in the area mightn't necessarily be in them (and hence should technically pop up on the appropriate records for another district/parish, but don't always).

Quite possible. So if jtr was a homeowner in the area, and, he was away on the night in question, he would not appear on the list. I still think, its a valid piece of research.

Had geographical profiling been available in 1888, they would certainly have used it in their search for the fiend.

All these years later, we may still unmask the villain

Plus we have to rely on the individual collecting and recording the data for its completeness and accuracy

Yes, I've already addressed this.

If you still fancy a go, as others on here have noted elsewhere, ancestry.co.uk has access to the censuses (no, I don't own that domain, but you know, in the spirit of research ); the 1881 one is free.

Thanks for the info. I might take a look. Can I select only those streets I am interested in ?

Goodness only knows what you'd do with the resulting lists or how you'd go about narrowing it down

I'd start of with the obvious, like removing all women. Then, as we are told that serial killers are usually in the 20's to mid 30's I think I'd remove all males from birth to age 17. Then all the men from 50 upwards.

There is perhaps much more that could be done.

[Dan Norder]

The people who created the video, have placed it where anyone can view it. That's why its at youtube. Its placed there with just that in mind.

No, the owners did not post it on YouTube. Someone else placed it there without permission. It's stolen property. That's why I mentioned it.

If you think the professionals that made that documentary would post their work for free on YouTube under the name "CrazedLunatic83" with a link to "wWw.BeStPaGeOnEaRtH.Com" you're pretty clueless.

[Chris Scott]

To give some idea of the figures involved:
1881 Census:
Flower and Dean Street
No of residents listed - 1062
No of male residents - 658
Males aged 20-30 at the time of the murders (i.e. aged 13 to 23 at the time of census) - 99

Thrawl Street
No of residents - 406
No of males - 212
No of males aged 20-30 - 25

Fashion Street
No of residents - 503
No of males - 253
No of males aged 20-30 - 59

Below, as an example, is the data for Fashion Street:
(Males aged 20-30 at time of murders)
Name Parent or spouse names Birth Year Birthplace Relation RESIDENCE
Judah Bannett Betsy abt 1858 Tower Hamlets, Middlesex, England Head Christ Church, London
Hyman Banuch David, Leah abt 1864 Spitalfield, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Samuel Caster Henry, Catherine abt 1861 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Charles Clarke Lizzie abt 1858 Shoreditch, Middlesex, England Head Christ Church, London
Aaron Cohen Isaac, Elizabeth abt 1867 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Abraham Cohen Isaac, Elizabeth abt 1862 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Harris Cohen Hyams, Hannah abt 1868 (F), Russia Son Christ Church, London
Hyman Cohen Samuel, Henrietta abt 1861 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Philip Cohen Isaac, Elizabeth abt 1860 Spitalfields Son Christ Church, London
Solomon Cohen Abraham, Sophia abt 1867 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Woolf Cohen Isaac, Elizabeth abt 1864 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Aaron Coon Joseph, Celia abt 1865 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Samuel Coon Joseph, Celia abt 1860 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Moses Coronel Aaron, Kitty abt 1862 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Samuel Coronel Aaron, Kitty abt 1864 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Zacharia Coronel Aaron, Kitty abt 1866 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Benjamin Davis Isaac, Rebecca abt 1868 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Solomon Davis Isaac, Rebecca abt 1867 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Morris Eizer Meyer, Sophia abt 1860 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Charles Elliott Richard, Matilda abt 1865 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Richard Elliott Richard, Matilda abt 1862 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Abraham Galinsky Morris, Cecily abt 1860 (F), Russia Son Christ Church, London
David Galinsky Morris, Cecily abt 1863 (F), Russia Son Christ Church, London
David Gold Abraham, Rebecca abt 1865 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Morris Gold Esther abt 1858 (F), Poland Head Christ Church, London
Morris Goldstein Samuel, Janie abt 1868 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Hyman Grasinsky Esther abt 1859 (F), Russia Head Christ Church, London
Abraham Haringman Solomon, Rebecca abt 1866 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
David Haringman Solomon, Rebecca abt 1868 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Abraham Harris Samuel, Sarah abt 1868 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Abraham Ioninbourn Solomon, Fanny abt 1864 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
David M. Jackshere Solomon, Betsey abt 1863 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Harris Jackshere abt 1863 (F), Poland Uncle Christ Church, London
Benjamin Jonas Ohab abt 1859 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Harris Klein Jacob, Hannah abt 1866 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Sam Klein Jacob, Hannah abt 1861 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Harris Lagatshesski Rebecca abt 1858 (F), Poland Head Christ Church, London
Joseph Lautenberg Marks, Pauline abt 1866 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Joseph Levy abt 1860 (F), Russia Visitor Christ Church, London
George Mullier Emanuel, Janet abt 1865 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Isake Mullier Emanuel, Janet abt 1859 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Simon Mullier Emanuel, Janet abt 1868 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Samuel Osborne Samuel, Ellen M. abt 1868 B Green, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Baznett Park Isaac, Esther abt 1868 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Joseph Park Isaac, Esther abt 1866 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Morris Peterchosky Isaac, Rachel abt 1868 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Jacob Polack Henry, Phaele abt 1863 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
John Quaintrell John, Mary abt 1861 B Green, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Thomas Quaintrell John, Mary abt 1865 B Green, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
David Rees Henry, Deborah abt 1867 Lambeth, Surrey, England Son Christ Church, London
Jacob Roose abt 1861 (F), Poland Servant Christ Church, London
Eleazear Ryner abt 1861 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Nephew Christ Church, London
Barnett Shulman Marks, Fanny abt 1868 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Jacob Silver Lewis, Hannah abt 1862 (F), Poland Son Christ Church, London
Gordon Van De Wouds Benjamin, Laartze abt 1868 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Jacob Van De Wouds Benjamin, Laartze abt 1863 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
Joseph Ventura Abraham, Julia abt 1864 Spitalfields, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London
Emanuel Welstan Moses abt 1860 (F), The Netherlands Son Christ Church, London
John Wetenigh John, Susan abt 1862 London, London, Middlesex, England Son Christ Church, London

[Chris]

The bottom line is that video was created by people who own it and control it, and unless you have their permission to post it you are stealing from them just as sure as if you'd taken money from someone else's wallet when they weren't looking.

Please let's not get things too much out of proportion. All he did was post a link to a copy of something that's not commercially available (as far as I can see), and which has already been freely broadcast on terrestrial TV in the UK.