The broken window

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

Yes..I am well thank you for asking. Yourself?

I have to say this. Your quote, above, is from the Echo.
Now it is easy with hindsight to judge a newspaper and it's articles as reliable or not based on comparable reports.

The Echo had..In very many cases, singular reports that appeared nowhere else. Am not sure of this one, with the gossip about a child being reported as gossip in many, if any other newspapers? Forgive me if I am in err.. but the point is this..


If you are relying on this titbit to find the origin of the child story, or the likely source, surely that report would have been picked up by the other newspapers as well?

If not...just how reliable was the Echo in this particular instance?

Phil

Hi Phil.

No, I'm not promoting the Echo in any way
Just explaining that the boy story was nothing to do with Barnett.

[Robert St Devil]

The Echo had..In very many cases, singular reports that appeared nowhere else. Am not sure of this one, with the gossip about a child being reported as gossip in many, if any other newspapers? Forgive me if I am in err..

Phil

Echo is definitely lowbrow next to the Evening News. Its journalism over reporting, but they give some great visuals. Compare their report of the Mary Conaly (who they're already calling Pearly Poll) review of the soldiers after the Martha Tabram murder against the Evening News report.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Well at least we're agreed that the boy wasn't a press creation.

Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

Hi Packers.

The evening papers canvassed the dailies for stories to cut-n-paste and reword to work into their evening coverage.
How much time do you think they spent on evaluating those stories?

Remember, the Star was a low cost publication operating by the seat of their pants. Output was their prime focus, ....accuracy?, not always their priority.

There are 3 stand out stories given to us by the star that seem to have been kept quiet in most quarters
This is one,the others are Mrs Kennedy who they say was interviewed by Abberline and Israel schwartz who, as far as I remember,appeared in no other newspaper.
If it weren't for the fluke that the schwartz interview was one of the few surviving official documents then many (most) of you would be arguing that schwartz was 'star nonsense' so let's have a think about that....

[DJA]

When Ripperologists disagree......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccuWFidUYI

[curious4]

When Ripperologists disagree......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ccuWFidUYI

You couldn't have put it better lol

C4

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Well at least we're agreed that the boy wasn't a press creation.

Regards,

Simon

You did catch me off guard when you mentioned the NSPCC, you had me thinking did Simon actually believe the story?
That wasn't the point of the disagreement, if you page back to post #150, you will read Packers comment that started the ball rolling...

"This is the same Barnett who told the press that Kelly had a small boy aged 6 or 7 living with her..."

As to whether it is true or not, well, not true when applied to Kelly (in my opinion), but knowing the number of rooms in Millers Court, there are a good number of residents not accounted for, any one of which may have been a woman with a child.

[Wickerman]

There are 3 stand out stories given to us by the star that seem to have been kept quiet in most quarters
This is one,the others are Mrs Kennedy who they say was interviewed by Abberline and Israel schwartz who, as far as I remember,appeared in no other newspaper.
If it weren't for the fluke that the schwartz interview was one of the few surviving official documents then many (most) of you would be arguing that schwartz was 'star nonsense' so let's have a think about that....

Hi Packers.

I don't know if you are aware that the Star was almost sued for libel by Pizer because of their unfounded accusations that he was Leather Apron. Press contemporaries of the Star were all aware it was a low-brow, low-cost, low-ethics, publication. Much like the tabloids of today with their alien autopsy's and "Elvis is still alive", etc.

Any credit towards the Star is limited to their on-the-street reporting of contemporary scenes, which can be highly informative.
Reporting inquest testimonies is a wash across the board for all press sources, they only report what they hear - you can't go far wrong there.

Where we have to apply a high degree of caution is when the Star provide unsourced stories, which in some cases, purport to suggest they have inside knowledge of police investigations.

I don't think anyone would throw out the press account attributed to Schwartz, it is the inclusion of a knife as opposed to a pipe that causes some doubt in the story, but not the whole story itself.
They may have spiced it up by changing that detail, but that does not mean the whole account is fake.

[Wickerman]

There are 3 stand out stories given to us by the star that seem to have been kept quiet in most quarters
This is one,the others are Mrs Kennedy who they say was interviewed by Abberline ...

Just a small note, about 11 or 12 newspapers carried the Kennedy story, and it was the Times who informs us that she was interviewed by Abberline.
In this case the Star called the "Wednesday" escapade "worthless", but not her account of what she saw Friday morning.
The Star actually believed Kennedy was the origin of both those stories, they did not know about Sarah Lewis and her account.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

The obvious answer is that you're floundering.

The two stories were from the same 9th November news agency interview, yet here you are trying to advance some cockamamie theory that the Star stole parts of it from The Times.

Hi Simon,

I'm not floundering at all. You are confused.

If you read my previous post carefully you will see that I'm not advancing a theory that the Star necessarily stole anything from the Times. The point is that the words "Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her", which you misleadingly posted earlier in this thread under the heading "JOE BARNETT'S STATEMENT", as if they had been extracted from a statement by Joe Barnett, were almost certainly never spoken by Joe Barnett either in that form or any similar form.

As the Times made perfectly clear in its 10 November edition, the information that Kelly had a little boy living with her came from a source other than Barnett.

That is the key point and you are the only one floundering in this thread.

[curious4]

Hi Packers.

I don't know if you are aware that the Star was almost sued for libel by Pizer because of their unfounded accusations that he was Leather Apron. Press contemporaries of the Star were all aware it was a low-brow, low-cost, low-ethics, publication. Much like the tabloids of today with their alien autopsy's and "Elvis is still alive", etc.

Any credit towards the Star is limited to their on-the-street reporting of contemporary scenes, which can be highly informative.
Reporting inquest testimonies is a wash across the board for all press sources, they only report what they hear - you can't go far wrong there.

Where we have to apply a high degree of caution is when the Star provide unsourced stories, which in some cases, purport to suggest they have inside knowledge of police investigations.

I don't think anyone would throw out the press account attributed to Schwartz, it is the inclusion of a knife as opposed to a pipe that causes some doubt in the story, but not the whole story itself.
They may have spiced it up by changing that detail, but that does not mean the whole account is fake.

Hello Wickerman

Wasn't there something about the words for pipe and knife being similar in Hungarian? Can't say myself, Hungarian not being one of my languages.

Best wishes
C4

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman

Wasn't there something about the words for pipe and knife being similar in Hungarian? Can't say myself, Hungarian not being one of my languages.

Best wishes
C4

Yes, that has been suggested by more than one person.
The problem though is, the context of both stories are entirely different.

In the police version we read:
"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he saw a second man standing lighting his pipe."

Whereas, in the press version we read:
"A second man came out of the doorway of the public-house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder. The Hungarian states positively that he saw a knife.."

Either the man was standing lighting his pipe, or he came running and shouting at Schwartz, brandishing a knife.

It takes more than a simple miss-translation of one word to change the entire context of what happened.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers.

I don't know if you are aware that the Star was almost sued for libel by Pizer because of their unfounded accusations that he was Leather Apron. Press contemporaries of the Star were all aware it was a low-brow, low-cost, low-ethics, publication. Much like the tabloids of today with their alien autopsy's and "Elvis is still alive", etc.

Any credit towards the Star is limited to their on-the-street reporting of contemporary scenes, which can be highly informative.
Reporting inquest testimonies is a wash across the board for all press sources, they only report what they hear - you can't go far wrong there.

Where we have to apply a high degree of caution is when the Star provide unsourced stories, which in some cases, purport to suggest they have inside knowledge of police investigations.

I don't think anyone would throw out the press account attributed to Schwartz, it is the inclusion of a knife as opposed to a pipe that causes some doubt in the story, but not the whole story itself.
They may have spiced it up by changing that detail, but that does not mean the whole account is fake.

Hi Wickerman
My point is
You would nearly all throw out the schwartz statement if it weren't for Abberline's report...almost certainly....
Did they spice it up?? Or did Abberline calm it down?
Shame we've got no other press reports to go with... Odd isn't it.Almost in 'packer odd' territory

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
My point is
You would nearly all throw out the schwartz statement if it weren't for Abberline's report...almost certainly....
Did they spice it up?? Or did Abberline calm it down?
Shame we've got no other press reports to go with... Odd isn't it.Almost in 'packer odd' territory

Hi Packers.

I wouldn't agree, actually.
(It was Swanson who wrote the summary by the way).

So on the contrary I suspect, if it were not for Swanson's summary, we would accept the Star version without question.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers.

I wouldn't agree, actually.
(It was Swanson who wrote the summary by the way).

So on the contrary I suspect, if it were not for Swanson's summary, we would accept the Star version without question.

Afternoon Wickerman
Sorry, forgot it was swanson.Stunning how often the top men got physically involved in washing walls,writing statements in their own hand etc after the double event.Just can't imagine that sort of thing happening today.
Nope,90% of posters would have said it's nonsense made up by the star (are you saying you wouldn't be in that 90%? And that you now value the writings of the star) because only the star carried it.
I think the star version is probably more likely than the official version. Notice how Packers statement also modified the time by an hour or so...a common occurance. I find I go with the press time and time again