The broken window

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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 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

[packers stem]

This letter of October 30th is making sense now

[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

[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.

[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.

[curious4]

No mention of Dew being there.

He was.

C4

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

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

Regards,

Simon