How do we decipher the newspaper reports?

[drstrange169]

This thread has been started after a suggestion by poster Caligo Umbarator for the need to analyse and define the way to best decipher the discrepancies in the extant news media reports.
Although I’ve mentioned some of the problems and possible reasons for the conflicting and often confusing accounts many times before, Caligo said it far more eloquently than I in post # 29 of the “Lechemere continuation thread” (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9761)

“… newspapers reporting on the proceedings at this inquest, do conflate or truncate parts of a witness's testimony, very possibly to fit a word count requirement.
Undesirably some newspapers also showed the practice, particularly The Times', of freely interchanging the formally styled 'witness' with the more ordinary 'he' or 'she'.
This may have been due to an editor inserting the word 'witness' in the appropriate places so as to give the article more the appearance of an official transcript or to reflect that newspapers own in-house editorial style and standards. It may also have been due to a hurried, deadline stricken reporter making transcription errors while preparing an article for the print run. However, it appears to have been applied inconsistently, even within the same portion.
Such seemingly careless and apparently unfinished alteration work has allowed an imprecise and contradictory record of important witness narratives to be set down. This permits for greater confusion during comparison of testimony than one might desire and has left certain passages regarding crucial events open to, in some cases, speculative interpretation.”

I would also add another source of possible errors would come from the compositors, misspelling and transposing words and sentences.
A useful thread on Casebook is Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence. (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8492)


To understand which reports are original and which are re-written agency buy-ins is a very useful start to understanding which accounts we should be giving more weight to.

[John Wheat]

Part of the problem in my opinion is that certain people say sources that support there pet theory are reliable but those that don't are unreliable. I also think the best way to get a balanced view is to compare several sources and see what tallies up.

[Wickerman]

Some time ago I collated the various press versions of both the Kelly inquest, and the Eddowes inquest, with the original court record of each case. The Kelly inquest in this form presently covers 73 pages and compares 19 press sources with the original court record. However, just to select a brief example from the Eddowes inquest, here is one paragraph taken from the inquest testimony of Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown.
In this comparison we can see the official record contains more detail than the press versions, however that is not always the case.

Court Record (CLRO)
Daily Telegraph (DT)
Daily News (DN)
Morning Advertiser (MA)
Morning Post (MP)
Standard (STD)
Echo (E)

(CLRO) The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery About 2 feet of the colon was cut away - The sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum very tightly – right kidney pale bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids. There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side and another cut at right angles to this which were about an inch and a half deep and 2 ½ inches long Liver itself was healthy – The gall blader contained bile the pancreas was cut but not through on the left side of the spinal column 3 ½ inches of the lower border of the spleen by ½ an inch was attached only to the peritoneum. The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed - The left renal artery was cut through – I should say that some one who knew the position of the kidney must have done it The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through The womb was cut through horizontally leaving a stump of ¾ of an inch the rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments – The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured The bladder was healthy and uninjured and contained 3 or 4 ounces of water There was a tongue like cut through the anterior wall of the abdominal aorta The other organs were healthy – There was no indication of connexion

(DT) Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

(DN) The left kidney had been carefully taken out in such as manner as to show that it had been done by somebody who not only knew its anatomical position, but knew how to remove it. Some part of another specific portion of the body similar to that abstracted from a previous victim was also missing with its ligaments.

(MA) After describing the conditions of the various organs, and the nature of other wounds discovered by post-mortem examination, witness said: The left kidney was completely cut out and taken away. The renal artery was cut through about three-quarters of an inch. This must have been done by someone who knew the position of the kidney and how to take it out. The membrane over the uterus was cut through, and the womb was cut through, leaving a stump of about three-quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb was absent-taken completely away from the body, together with some of the ligaments.

(MP) The witness then explained in detail the other injuries indicated, showing that the same organs had been removed as in former cases.

(STD) The liver was healthy. The left kidney was removed in a particular way.
The City Solicitor, - Do you draw any conclusion from that? - I think that somebody who knew the position of the kidney and how to take it out must have done it. The uterus was cut through, and a portion of it removed.

(E) In a subsequent part of his statement, Dr. Brown said - The left kidney has been carefully taken away, and the artery cut through.
Mr. Crawford - Do you draw any special conclusion from that?
I think that someone who knew the position of the kidney, and how to take it out, must have done it. The womb was cut through leaving a stump of about three-quarters of an inch, the rest of the womb was absent, and had been taken away with some of the ligaments.
Mr Crawford - When you speak of the left kidney being taken away, do you think it was taken away altogether? - Yes, it could not be found anywhere.

[Wickerman]

In this next example, picked at random, we can see the reverse is true, the press can provide more than the official record.

(CLRO) I think the prepetrator of this act had sufficient time or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids It would take at least 5 minutes

(DT) [Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

(T) Mr. Crawford. - Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed when performing it? Witness. - I think he had sufficient time. My reason is that he would not have nicked the lower eyelids if he had been in a great hurry.
Mr. Crawford. - About how long do you think it would take to inflict all these wounds, and perpetrate such a deed? Witness. - At least five minutes would be required.

(DN) Have you any opinion as to whether the perpetrator was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, or he would not have cut and nicked the eyelids if he had not had plenty of time. I should think the whole thing could have been done in five minutes.

(MA) Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed during the performance of it?-I should think he had sufficient time, as he would not have nicked the eyelids unless he had.
How long would the whole thing take to do?-It could be done in five minutes. I may say that a man who is accustomed to removing the womb was asked to take one out, and it took him three minutes.

(MP) Do you think the murderer was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time; he would not have cut the lower eyelids if he had been in a great hurry. The wounds could not have been inflicted in less than five minutes. The bladder was in no way injured in the body; and I may mention that a man accustomed to remove the portions removed was asked by me to do so as quickly as possible. He accompanied the task in three minutes, but not without injuring the bladder.

(STD) Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time; but from certain marks was probably hurried.
How long would it take to inflict these wounds? - Five minutes. A skilled operator would take three and a half minutes to remove the uterus.

[drstrange169]

Thanks Jon,

Interestingly, in your first post the various reports are quite individual.
In you second post we can see some evidence of a common source with some of them.

[Wickerman]

Yes, in that first post you wouldn't think they were all talking about the same subject. It perhaps speaks more to an edited coverage by the press who were cautious about Victorian sensibilities, so they trimmed their coverage down to the bare minimum.

Here is another example using a statement by P.C. Long, only two lines are copied in the official record (CLRO) yet look how much coverage the press provide for the exact same topic.


(CLRO) I next returned to the Building about 5 o'clock When I returned the writing had not been rubbed out It was rubbed out in my presence at ½ past 5 or thereabouts I did not hear any one object to its being rubbed out.

(DT) [Coroner] When did you return? - About five o'clock.
[Coroner] Had the writing been rubbed out then? - No; it was rubbed out in my presence at half-past five.
[Coroner] Did you hear any one object to its being rubbed out? - No. It was nearly daylight when it was rubbed out.
A Juror: Having examined the apron and the writing, did it not occur to you that it would be wise to search the dwelling? - I did what I thought was right under the circumstances.
The Juror: I do not wish to say anything to reflect upon you, because I consider that altogether the evidence of the police redounds to their credit; but it does seem strange that this clue was not followed up.
Witness: I thought the best thing to do was to proceed to the station and report to the inspector on duty.
The Juror: I am sure you did what you deemed best.
Mr. Crawford: I suppose you thought it more likely to find the body there than the murderer? - Witness: Yes, and I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was.
The Foreman: Was there any possibility of a stranger escaping from the house? - Not from the front.
[Coroner] Did you not know about the back? - No, that was the first time I had been on duty there.

(T) Witness next returned to the building at 5 o'clock. The writing was rubbed out in witness's presence at half-past 5, or thereabouts. He heard no one object to the writing being rubbed out.
A juryman. - Having heard of the murder, and having afterwards found the piece of apron with blood on it and the writing on the wall, did it not strike you that it would be well to make some examination of the rooms in the building? You say you searched all the passages, but you would not expect that the man who had committed the murder would hide himself there.
Witness. - Seeing the blood there, I thought that the murder had been committed, and that the body might be placed in the building.
The juryman. - You did not search the rooms, but left a man to watch the building, and the whole clue seems to have passed away. I do not wish to say anything harsh, as I consider that the evidence of yourself and of the other members of the police redounds to the credit of all of you; but this does seem a point that requires a little investigation. You find a piece of apron wet with blood; you search all the passages, and then you leave the building in the care of a man to watch the front. Witness. - I thought the best thing I could do was to go to the station and report the matter to the inspector on duty.
The juryman. - I feel sure you did your best.
Mr. Crawford. - May we take it that you thought you would be more likely to find the body of the murdered person there than the assassin? Witness. - Yes.
By a juryman. - Witness was a stranger in the neighbourhood. No one could have gone out of the front part of the building without being seen by the constable left on the spot by witness.

(DN) I returned to the building about five o'clock.
Had the writing been rubbed out? - No, it was rubbed out in my presence ay half past five. Did you hear any one object to its being rubbed out? - No; it was beginning to get daylight. It was not quite daylight.
A Juror - Having heard of a murder, and subsequently found a piece of apron with blood upon it, did it not appear to you that it might be as well to examine some of the rooms of the building? - No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there.
The juror added that he did not wish to reflect on the police, for the City police especially had acted creditably, but it did appear strange that the buildings were not examined.
Witness said that he acted as he thought best according to his knowledge.
Mr. Crawford - You thought you were more likely to find the body that to find the actual murderer?
Witness - Yes. No one left the building before I returned with the inspector.
Mr. Crawford remarked that he could carry the matter no further at present.

(MA) I next returned to the building about five o'clock. The writing on the wall had not then been rubbed out. It was rubbed out in my presence at half past five.
Did you hear anyone object to its being rubbed out? - No, I didn't.
A juror repeated what he had already said as to his surprise that the clue furnished by the finding of the apron in the passage of the building in Goulston street was not followed up by a search of the building himself. The evidence of Police constable Long and that of all the constables that had been given certainly redounded to their credit - (hear, hear, from the jury) - but it did seem strange that the clue was not followed up by searching the rest of the building, and not confining the search merely to the staircases. He asked the witness whether it did not occur to him that that should have been done.
Constable Long - I thought that the best thing I could do after searching the stairs, and instructing other constables to watch the building, was to proceed as soon as possible to the police station to make my report. The inspector was better able to deal with the matter than I was.