The broken window

[David Orsam]

Hi Wickerman,

Star, 10th November 1888—

JOE BARNETT'S STATEMENT.

"Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her."

Just to clarify, those quotes wrapped around that sentence do not indicate that Joe Barnett said those words. Nor did the Star actually reproduce a "statement" from Barnett.

That sentence is the final sentence of a two paragraph summary of what Joe Barnett supposedly told a Star reporter in a (probably noisy) public house, and while one might reasonably assume that Barnett was the source of the sentence, he might not have been.

The Globe of the very same day (10 November) - and, quite possibly later editions of the Star - clarified the position: 'Further inquiries show that Kelly had no son. The boy who lived with her belonged to a woman with whom she was very friendly, and who stayed with her on several occasions.'

[DJA]

Ah, I can see what has happened.

This is what we read in the Star, on the evening of the 10th.

"He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window. "

[Wickerman]

I'll never agree she could be identified by her 'bloodsoaked' hair and her eyes. Look at the photo,it's a nonsense to believe the ID as sound

If a woman is found dead on your bed, in the house you had recently lived in, the same physical build, same age, same length of hair, same colour, as your wife.
Are you still going to say, "I can't help you officer, it could be anybody".

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Barnett did not tell the Star (in a probably noisy public house) that Kelly had a son.

"Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her."

It tallies with the Globe report.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

"He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window. "

Didn't I already point that out in a couple of earlier posts?

[David Orsam]

Ah, I can see what has happened.

This is what we read in the Star, on the evening of the 10th.

"She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position of life as herself. Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her."

They stole it from the Times of the same day, where we read:

[B]"She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position as herself.

Another account gives the following details: Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her,.."

You can see what the Star did, they removed "Another account gives the following details", from the daily story to republish in their evening edition.

So no, Barnett did not make that claim, what we have is another example of inaccurate reporting reporting by the Star.

I think you've cracked it Jon.

The passage in which the bit about the Elephant & Castle appears in The Times is sourced from Barnett (who is said to have spoken to a reporter on the evening of 9 November, and is identical to what appears in the second paragraph of the Star article) whereas the bit about the boy living with her is (as you say) said to have come from "Another account", so the Star has clearly fused the two separate accounts into one, making it look like the whole thing had been said by Barnett when it hadn't.

[Wickerman]

Hi David,

Barnett did not tell the Star (in a probably noisy public house) that Kelly had a son.

"Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her."

It tallies with the Globe report.

Regards,

Simon

I repeat....
"So no, Barnett did not make that claim, what we have is another example of inaccurate reporting reporting by the Star."

[Wickerman]

I think you've cracked it Jon.

The passage in which the bit about the Elephant & Castle appears in The Times is sourced from Barnett (who is said to have spoken to a reporter on the evening of 9 November, and is identical to what appears in the second paragraph of the Star article) whereas the bit about the boy living with her is (as you say) said to have come from "Another account", so the Star has clearly fused the two separate accounts into one, making it look like the whole thing had been said by Barnett when it hadn't.

Exactly David. When quotes appear from the Star, it is well to analyze them thoroughly before hanging the proverbial hat on what they report.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

So why was a doctor from the NSPCC summoned to Millers Court?

Regards,

Simon

[Robert St Devil]

Wouldnt chopping down a door or chopping a hole in a door send splinters flying? If all they had was an axe, i would told them to use it like a battering ram like the cops do today.

[curious4]

No mention of Dew being there.

He was.

C4

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Barnett did not tell the Star (in a probably noisy public house) that Kelly had a son.

"Kelly had a little boy, aged about six or seven years, living with her."

Hi Simon,

I didn't say that Barnett told the Star that Kelly had a son. And now we know that he didn't say she had a little boy living with her either.

See Jon's and my posts which have, I think, cleared the matter up. The statement, 'Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her' appeared first in the Times in the morning of 10 November 1888, reproduced later in the day in the Star under a misleading heading, and the information in that statement was said to have been sourced from someone other than Barnett.

[David Orsam]

Exactly David. When quotes appear from the Star, it is well to analyze them thoroughly before hanging the proverbial hat on what they report.

Agreed Jon.

[packers stem]

Thankyou Simon - interesting.

The Times of the same date does not associate the "child" story with Barnett, in fact that story is reported after Barnett's statement, among other unsourced stories.

"Another account gives the following details: Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her, and latterly she had been in narrow straits, so much so that she is reported to have stated to a companion that she would make away with herself, as she could not bear to see her boy starving."

If they obtained the story from this "companion", it is odd that they didn't name him Barnett.

Kelly told lizzie Albrook and 'margaret' that she planned to 'make away with herself' so it does appear you've cracked it Wickerman...there was a child after all

[packers stem]

This letter of October 30th is making sense now