The broken window

[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]

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.

[curious4]

When Ripperologists disagree......

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

You couldn't have put it better lol

C4

[DJA]

When Ripperologists disagree......

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

[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....

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

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

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

No Simon, this diversion began when it was claimed that the boy story came from Barnett.

I made no suggestion it was a press creation.

Also, I wasn't aware the boy had been harmed in any way, perhaps you could enlighten us?
How cruel is it to send a boy to buy sweets?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Your argument appears to be that the boy was an press invention.

So explain this.

Why did a surgeon from the SPCC arrive in Millers Court on the afternoon of 9th November?

It's a simple enough question.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

The origin of the "boy" story just may be indicated in an article written by the Echo on the evening of Nov. 9th, it should be noted that nowhere do the Echo provide an interview with Barnett.
However, we read the "boy" story may have come from residents of the court.

"The murdered woman had one child, a little boy of between six and seven. The little fellow lived with his mother. This poor child was sent out this morning, when the mother returned to the room with the assassin. The gossip of the neighbourhood, or rather of the very court in which the house is situated, is to the effect that the man who is suspected of having committed the murder sent the child out to buy sweets and playing he found the place in commotion, for his mother had been discovered lifeless and bleeding, and the murder had fled."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881109.html

Nothing to do with Barnett.

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

[Wickerman]

The origin of the "boy" story just may be indicated in an article written by the Echo on the evening of Nov. 9th, it should be noted that nowhere do the Echo provide an interview with Barnett.
However, we read the "boy" story may have come from residents of the court.

"The murdered woman had one child, a little boy of between six and seven. The little fellow lived with his mother. This poor child was sent out this morning, when the mother returned to the room with the assassin. The gossip of the neighbourhood, or rather of the very court in which the house is situated, is to the effect that the man who is suspected of having committed the murder sent the child out to buy sweets and playing he found the place in commotion, for his mother had been discovered lifeless and bleeding, and the murder had fled."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881109.html

Nothing to do with Barnett.

[Simon Wood]

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.

The jig is up, Mr. Awesome.

Get over yourself.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Would you like to read it again Wickerman
...like you say having the luxury to scrutinise....
Now, I would suggest that the luxury to scrutinise should improve reliability on average

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.

[David Orsam]

Why The Times ascribed the story of the little boy to "another account" is unknown.

Oh really? Could it not be because it came from a separate source? In other words, the obvious answer.

Look at the first paragraph of the Star's account of the interview with Barnett in the public house. The bit about Kelly being from Limerick and her real name being Mary Jeanette etc. None of that appears in the Times.

The second paragraph, however, matches what had been published in the Times earlier that morning. Then there is an additional sentence - about the little boy - clearly taken from the Times which sourced that information from 'another account'.

So isn't the obvious explanation that the Star has fused two separate interviews with Barnett into one, adding an extra sentence about Kelly's little boy, taken from that day's Times (or from whatever agency the Times obtained its information), which it wrongly attributed to Barnett?

And if the first edition of the Star was on the streets at 11:00am, the first edition of the Times had already been available to the Star for about 10 hours or so.