The broken window

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Joseph Barnett was interviewed on Friday 9th November by a news agency reporter.

Star and Times reports, both 10th November 1888.

Star: In a public-house close by Buller's the reporter succeeded later on in finding Barnett, who is an Irishman by parentage and a Londoner by birth.

Times: Joseph Barnett (called in other reports Kelly), an Irishman, at present residing in a common lodging-house in New-street, Bishopsgate, informed a reporter last evening that he had occupied his present lodgings since Tuesday week.

Star: To our reporter Barnett said he and the deceased were very happy and comfortable together until another woman came to sleep in their room, to which he strongly objected.

Times: They were very happy and comfortable together until another woman came to sleep in the room, to which he strongly objected.

Star: Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman whom he called his wife and left her.

Times: Finally, after the woman had been there two or three nights he quarrelled with the woman whom he called his wife and left her.

Star: The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money.

Times: The next day, however, he returned and gave Kelly money.

Star: He called several other days and gave her money when he had it.

Times: He called several other days and gave her money when he had it.

Star: On Thursday night he visited her between half-past seven and eight, and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her.

Times: On Thursday night he visited her between half past 7 and 8 and told her he was sorry he had no money to give her.

Star: He saw nothing more of her. 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.

Times: He saw nothing more of her. She used occasionally to go to the Elephant and Castle district to visit a friend who was in the same position as herself.

What we have here are two differently sub-edited versions of the same agency interview. Why The Times ascribed the story of the little boy to "another account" is unknown.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Simon.

What we read in the Times morning paper are stories obtained the day before.
They go to press overnight and publish at daybreak on Sat. morning. So what you quote from the Times on Sat morning, the 10th, was obtained on Friday.

What we read in the evening papers of the 10th, like the Star, is obtained earlier that same day. In the case of evening papers they have the luxury of scrutinizing their morning contemporaries for news to add to their evening papers.

That being the case, may I ask, why do you put the cart before the horse, in quoting the Star first, followed by the Times, when the sequence is the other way around?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

The Times said the story was obtained the previous evening [9th].

The first edition of the Star hit the streets at 11.00 am. Same as the Evening Standard when I lived in London.

Turn the reports the other way around if it makes you happy.

Both newspapers were reporting the same agency story.

It ain't rocket science.

Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

Simon.

What we read in the Times morning paper are stories obtained the day before.
They go to press overnight and publish at daybreak on Sat. morning. So what you quote from the Times on Sat morning, the 10th, was obtained on Friday.

What we read in the evening papers of the 10th, like the Star, is obtained earlier that same day. In the case of evening papers they have the luxury of scrutinizing their morning contemporaries for news to add to their evening papers.

That being the case, may I ask, why do you put the cart before the horse, in quoting the Star first, followed by the Times, when the sequence is the other way around?

Hi Wickerman
Aren't you countering you're own argument then by saying the star is the more reliable by like you say having the luxury to scrutinise and having the ability to carry out further checks?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

The Times said the story was obtained the previous evening [9th].

The first edition of the Star hit the streets at 11.00 am.

Star reporters are still compiling their stories at 2:00 pm ready for their first edition.


You might want to also check the Echo, who make use of the same story, and report the piece concerning the child totally detached from Barnett's story.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/echo/18881110.html

The Echo use the "child" story six paragraphs before the Barnett account.
They were and are completely separate accounts.

You might want to check the Pall Mall Gazette too, another evening paper, for totally separate accounts of these stories.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/pall_mall_gazette/18881110.html

It's the same with another morning paper, The Daily News, who report both stories completely separate, not attributing the "boy" story to Barnett.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881110.html

Like you say, its not rocket science.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman
Aren't you countering you're own argument then by saying the star is the more reliable by like you say having the luxury to scrutinise and having the ability to carry out further checks?

Bite your tongue!!!


I am quite sure I have never alluded to the Star being "more reliable" at any time.
The evening papers did borrow stories from the morning papers, call them cheap (not having to pay for agency stories), or lazy, if you like, but certainly not more reliable.

Hey, the weekend papers had the whole week to borrow & research or confirm their stories, but strangely enough, they make some horrendous mistakes.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

You are obviously in a state of high anxiety.

Calm down and save yourself a lot of grief.

Tell me exactly what it is that you are so desperate to prove.

Regards,

Simon

[packers stem]

Bite your tongue!!!


I am quite sure I have never alluded to the Star being "more reliable" at any time.
The evening papers did borrow stories from the morning papers, call them cheap (not having to pay for agency stories), or lazy, if you like, but certainly not more reliable.

Hey, the weekend papers had the whole week to borrow & research or confirm their stories, but strangely enough, they make some horrendous mistakes.

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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?