Money

[JeffHamm]

I have personal experience of this and it can be even worse than you describe, Jeff. I was asked several years ago to do an interview for a local paper, following a genuine 'double event' in the area, but before the killer was suspected and linked to both attacks on the same night. I predicted there would be just the one offender. The published article contained direct quotes attributed to me, which I never said, and would never have worded in that way. Inaccurate reporting or paraphrasing is bad enough, but at least most of us know this goes on, and we treat press reports with caution. I can see no excuse for inventing or changing actual quotes from an interviewee, and this taught me never to take anything in the papers at face value.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Yes, it can be quite bad as your experience shows. I think it's best to remember that the gist of the press reports we should probably consider, but when we start critiquing ideas based upon specific wording in the press, we're starting to make mountains out of non-existent mole hills.

- Jeff

[Bridewell]

Finally the Suffolk Strangler, Steve Wright knew at least some of his victims I believe. And that he had been a regular user of sex workers for years. Maybe the same could be said about Jack ?

Regards Darryl

And that's why they trusted him. Perhaps there was some reason why they all trusted the entity known as JtR?

[caz]

Thanks.

Yes, while there can be some useful information in the press, it tends to be presented imprecisely and it has been filtered through a number of steps (the words said by the person interviewed; were the spontaneous or in response to a question? Was the question leading in any way? Did the reporter summarize the person's words, leaving out details we should know? Did an editor further reword, resummarize, based upon what they thought the reporter meant the person said or even just rewording to make it a "better story"? and so forth). The lack of official documents, in particular transcripts of interviews, means we're always held at arm's length from the actual witnesses, and with the press, those arms are that much longer.

- Jeff

I have personal experience of this and it can be even worse than you describe, Jeff. I was asked several years ago to do an interview for a local paper, following a genuine 'double event' in the area, but before the killer was suspected and linked to both attacks on the same night. I predicted there would be just the one offender. The published article contained direct quotes attributed to me, which I never said, and would never have worded in that way. Inaccurate reporting or paraphrasing is bad enough, but at least most of us know this goes on, and we treat press reports with caution. I can see no excuse for inventing or changing actual quotes from an interviewee, and this taught me never to take anything in the papers at face value.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Aethelwulf,

I think from what we have available, B.S. is the most plausible killer of Stride, with Pipeman a fairly distant second in my view. I think it may be possible that B.S. and Stride had spent some time together at a pub earlier, and either she disappeared on him or they had an earlier disagreement and she left (hence his anger towards her when he finds her outside the club). From what Schwartz relates, there was very little interaction between B.S. and Stride before he starts throwing her about, and it would make more sense to me if they had some prior interaction that put them in a "mood" towards each other.

I can't see Pipeman and B.S. being known to each other. B.S. enters the area from the other direction, and Pipeman is already there. I see no reason to see why they should be acquainted myself.

- Jeff

I agree with Jeff. The whole scenario begins to make sense to me if BS met up with Stride earlier and assumed his luck was in, but it's not what she wants, so she leaves him in the pub and walks off to the club on her own. She may be seeking safety in numbers, or just hoping to see a friendly or familiar face there, but when BS sees her he is angry to think she has given him the cold shoulder in favour of anyone at the club. When he tries to pull her into the street, she calls out in protest at being manhandled, but is not in immediate fear of her life because of the busy location and the fact that he didn't present with two heads or devil's horns down the boozer. The man has just shown himself to be a bully and she's used to it. Besides, Schwartz is fast approaching and Pipeman is standing nearby and, as BS man becomes aware of both men, so will Stride, giving her an added sense of security, if tragically short-lived. BS man sees the strongly Jewish looking Schwartz as another annoyance, so he shouts out an insult that sends him packing. Unsurprisingly, Pipeman has been reading the room and, sensing a minor domestic, decides not to hang around either and walks off swiftly in the same direction as Schwartz, but with no intent to follow him or catch him up.

As for the money, I have no idea where Stride's sixpence went, but there must be several possibilities.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

Nicely put together summary Jeff.

I think you clearly show why we need to be very careful with reaching conclusions based on the press reports. Sadly it's a fact that often we have little else to go with.


Steve

Thanks.

Yes, while there can be some useful information in the press, it tends to be presented imprecisely and it has been filtered through a number of steps (the words said by the person interviewed; were the spontaneous or in response to a question? Was the question leading in any way? Did the reporter summarize the person's words, leaving out details we should know? Did an editor further reword, resummarize, based upon what they thought the reporter meant the person said or even just rewording to make it a "better story"? and so forth). The lack of official documents, in particular transcripts of interviews, means we're always held at arm's length from the actual witnesses, and with the press, those arms are that much longer.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

In Josh's post 107, he presents two press report's, one on the 12th and the second on the 13th. The one on the 13th looks much like the one on the 12th, and it may be a more completing presentation of the original story; meaning she it doesn't look to me like she spoke to the press twice, only that the press expanded the story from the 12th on the 13th.

Going with that idea, the story on the 12th says that she spoke to the press "yesterday", so the interview appears to have been on the 11th.

The version on the 13th, while it reiterates the "yesterday" part (suggesting she spoke on the 12th, but I think that's just an error due to recycling the story, which of course could be wrong), also include the detail that she identified Annie at the mortuary.

If I'm correct, and the two stories are the same story (one interview), that detail means she must have spoken with the police prior to having been interviewed by the press on the 11th.

It then comes down to whether or not it would be the case that on the day she first approaches the police they also take her to the mortuary for the identification. If so, then I suppose it is possible that all happens on the morning of the 11th and the press get wind of her and interview her the same day.

If that seems improbable, then it would point to her going to the police prior to the 11th and giving her statement, and possibly doing the identification as late as the 11th, at which point the press had learned of that and were there to interview her afterwards. That would suggest she went to the police on the 10th.

And then there's the possibility that the press only learn of the identification after it is over, and track her down to interview her the day after, moving her statement to the 9th, the identification on the 10th, and the interview on the 11th, to appear as "yesterday" on the 12th, which gets repeated in the longer version on the 13th.

I suppose one could even shift her going to the police on the 8th, resulting in an identification on the 9th through the 11th, with the press interviewing her on the 11th (either being there to talk to her after the identification itself, or having tracked her down after getting an inside tip from someone that an identification took place).

Hmmm, I think that covers most of the positions one might take in a debate as to when she went to the police. Given we don't actually know, though, makes it impossible to resolve it in anything that resembles conclusive. Still, I think there's a good argument to be made that the press interviewed her on the 11th, which is 3 days after the murder on the 8th. But I'm not sure we can say she only went to the police on the 11th, as there are too many options that allow her to have done that much earlier, even as soon as the 8th itself.

- Jeff

Nicely put together summary Jeff.

I think you clearly show why we need to be very careful with reaching conclusions based on the press reports. Sadly it's a fact that often we have little else to go with.


Steve

[JeffHamm]

Thanks George,

Again it's down to relying on accepting the press reports. It's clear I think she spoke to the press around 12th, if she had spoken to anyone before is I think open to debate.

I also interpret the comment about seeing lots of couples as apply not to that morning in particular, but that she often saw couples around that time.

The testimony of Davies seems to suggest the street was not crowded, yes there were people about, but not apparently crowded.
This of course is the issue we have we the often contradictory reports.

I personally see the significance of a delayed reported less important than many do.
Human nature means people don't always come forward

But it's an interesting debate, and I fully understand your thinking.


Steve

In Josh's post 107, he presents two press report's, one on the 12th and the second on the 13th. The one on the 13th looks much like the one on the 12th, and it may be a more completing presentation of the original story; meaning she it doesn't look to me like she spoke to the press twice, only that the press expanded the story from the 12th on the 13th.

Going with that idea, the story on the 12th says that she spoke to the press "yesterday", so the interview appears to have been on the 11th.

The version on the 13th, while it reiterates the "yesterday" part (suggesting she spoke on the 12th, but I think that's just an error due to recycling the story, which of course could be wrong), also include the detail that she identified Annie at the mortuary.

If I'm correct, and the two stories are the same story (one interview), that detail means she must have spoken with the police prior to having been interviewed by the press on the 11th.

It then comes down to whether or not it would be the case that on the day she first approaches the police they also take her to the mortuary for the identification. If so, then I suppose it is possible that all happens on the morning of the 11th and the press get wind of her and interview her the same day.

If that seems improbable, then it would point to her going to the police prior to the 11th and giving her statement, and possibly doing the identification as late as the 11th, at which point the press had learned of that and were there to interview her afterwards. That would suggest she went to the police on the 10th.

And then there's the possibility that the press only learn of the identification after it is over, and track her down to interview her the day after, moving her statement to the 9th, the identification on the 10th, and the interview on the 11th, to appear as "yesterday" on the 12th, which gets repeated in the longer version on the 13th.

I suppose one could even shift her going to the police on the 8th, resulting in an identification on the 9th through the 11th, with the press interviewing her on the 11th (either being there to talk to her after the identification itself, or having tracked her down after getting an inside tip from someone that an identification took place).

Hmmm, I think that covers most of the positions one might take in a debate as to when she went to the police. Given we don't actually know, though, makes it impossible to resolve it in anything that resembles conclusive. Still, I think there's a good argument to be made that the press interviewed her on the 11th, which is 3 days after the murder on the 8th. But I'm not sure we can say she only went to the police on the 11th, as there are too many options that allow her to have done that much earlier, even as soon as the 8th itself.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

My source was Sugden P103, but his information was from the newspapers, and stated she went to police on the 12th..

"[Coroner]

Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.

[Coroner]

At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them."

A Juryman (to Amelia Richardson)- You mean to say you could hear them if you were awake? Witness - Yes. Of course there is noise and bustle on market mornings. I heard no cries on Saturday.

I look at the delay in reporting and the admission by Long that there were lots of couples on the street. Mrs Richardson confirmed that the street was crowded, and Long that she took no notice of them because it was entirely normal. This leads me to consider Long as an unreliable witness.

Cheers, George

Thanks George,

Again it's down to relying on accepting the press reports. It's clear I think she spoke to the press around 12th, if she had spoken to anyone before is I think open to debate.

I also interpret the comment about seeing lots of couples as apply not to that morning in particular, but that she often saw couples around that time.

The testimony of Davies seems to suggest the street was not crowded, yes there were people about, but not apparently crowded.
This of course is the issue we have we the often contradictory reports.

I personally see the significance of a delayed reported less important than many do.
Human nature means people don't always come forward

But it's an interesting debate, and I fully understand your thinking.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Steve,

My source was Sugden P103, but his information was from the newspapers, and stated she went to police on the 12th..

"[Coroner]

Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.

[Coroner]

At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them."

A Juryman (to Amelia Richardson)- You mean to say you could hear them if you were awake? Witness - Yes. Of course there is noise and bustle on market mornings. I heard no cries on Saturday.

I look at the delay in reporting and the admission by Long that there were lots of couples on the street. Mrs Richardson confirmed that the street was crowded, and Long that she took no notice of them because it was entirely normal. This leads me to consider Long as an unreliable witness.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Just one point (and without wanting to be drawn back to Hanbury Street) on this exchange:

“Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.”

She didn’t say “I saw.” She is speaking generally, after being asked if it was unusual to see a man and woman talking there, Mrs. Long was saying ‘no, I often see men and women talking at that time.’

That it was nothing unusual to see a man and woman talking at that time of the morning but not that the street was crowded. Of course though this means that she had no particular reason for paying them any close attention.

Cadosh statement might also indicate that there weren’t many people around at the time:

“I did not see any man and woman in the street when I went out.”

This doesn’t mean that the street was entirely deserted though of course but it seems to me to at least indicate that there weren’t many people around.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Steve,

My source was Sugden P103, but his information was from the newspapers, and stated she went to police on the 12th..

"[Coroner]

Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.

[Coroner]

At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them."

A Juryman (to Amelia Richardson)- You mean to say you could hear them if you were awake? Witness - Yes. Of course there is noise and bustle on market mornings. I heard no cries on Saturday.

I look at the delay in reporting and the admission by Long that there were lots of couples on the street. Mrs Richardson confirmed that the street was crowded, and Long that she took no notice of them because it was entirely normal. This leads me to consider Long as an unreliable witness.

Cheers, George

I dont see any reason why thats not a fair assumption on your behalf George .

[GBinOz]

Hi George, you say Long waited 3 days, how do we know this is so?

We know when she appeared at the inquest, but have NO idea , so far as I am aware of when she approached the coroner's officer or the police to begin with.

If you have those details, showing that she waited 3 days before contacting them, then of course I accept the gap.


Steve

Hi Steve,

My source was Sugden P103, but his information was from the newspapers, and stated she went to police on the 12th..

"[Coroner]

Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.

[Coroner]

At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them."

A Juryman (to Amelia Richardson)- You mean to say you could hear them if you were awake? Witness - Yes. Of course there is noise and bustle on market mornings. I heard no cries on Saturday.

I look at the delay in reporting and the admission by Long that there were lots of couples on the street. Mrs Richardson confirmed that the street was crowded, and Long that she took no notice of them because it was entirely normal. This leads me to consider Long as an unreliable witness.

Cheers, George

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
I believe Long (under the alias Durrell) first appeared in the press in the Star 12 Sept;

"A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields Market, stated yesterday that, about half-past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple."

Then widely in the press the next day, eg;
Daily News 13 Sept;

"A woman named Mrs. Durrell made a statement yesterday to the effect that about half-past five o'clock on the morning of the murder of Mrs. Chapman she saw a man and woman conversing outside No. 29, Hanbury-street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. Mrs. Durrell was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury-street."

That said, I generally agree with your point below

Hi, long time my friend.

Press reports of course are not the same as reporting to the police or coroner's officer.
But such is of course the reason that George asked the question.

She appears on day 4 of the inquest, 19th September , the same day as Cadosch.

I suspect we have no solid evidence of when she first came forward to the authorities rather than the press.

Hope you are well JR.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi George, you say Long waited 3 days, how do we know this is so?

We know when she appeared at the inquest, but have NO idea , so far as I am aware of when she approached the coroner's officer or the police to begin with.

If you have those details, showing that she waited 3 days before contacting them, then of course I accept the gap.

Hi Steve,
I believe Long (under the alias Durrell) first appeared in the press in the Star 12 Sept;

"A woman named Durrell, who minds carts on market morning in Spitalfields Market, stated yesterday that, about half-past five o'clock on Saturday morning, she was passing the front door of No. 29, Hanbury-street, when she saw a man and a woman standing on the pavement. She heard the man say, "Will you?" and the woman replied, "Yes." They then disappeared. Mrs. Durrell does not think she could identify the couple."

Then widely in the press the next day, eg;
Daily News 13 Sept;

"A woman named Mrs. Durrell made a statement yesterday to the effect that about half-past five o'clock on the morning of the murder of Mrs. Chapman she saw a man and woman conversing outside No. 29, Hanbury-street, the scene of the murder, and that they disappeared very suddenly. Mrs. Durrell was taken to the mortuary yesterday, and identified the body of Chapman as that of the woman whom she saw in Hanbury-street."

That said, I generally agree with your point below

I found in the Bucks Row case, that people seem to ascribe the date of appearance at the inquest with the date they first come forward.
The reality is that you might approach the coroners officer within hours of the event, and the coroner then decide not to call you until several days later in proceedings.

[Elamarna]

Hi Fishy,

I am less concerned about the clocks than the fact that Long waited 3 days before deciding that she might like to become part of the news by concluding that she had seen the killer with the victim. Mrs Richardson commented on the bustle in the street that morning due to market day so Long has picked one couple out of many, she told the coroner, to be Chapman and Jack. We don't know how many bodies she was shown to make an identification, but I don't buy her story.

That comment of Jeff's that you boldened is the truest statement I have seen on this forum in a long time. Jeff, perhaps you should use it as your signature.

Cheers, George

Hi George, you say Long waited 3 days, how do we know this is so?

We know when she appeared at the inquest, but have NO idea , so far as I am aware of when she approached the coroner's officer or the police to begin with.

If you have those details, showing that she waited 3 days before contacting them, then of course I accept the gap.

I found in the Bucks Row case, that people seem to ascribe the date of appearance at the inquest with the date they first come forward.
The reality is that you might approach the coroners officer within hours of the event, and the coroner then decide not to call you until several days later in proceedings.

As for timings, have you listened/watched the Rippercast recording of my East End Conference talk on timings?
While i don't mention Hanbury street, I do show very clearly how even modern day public clocks, only a hundred or so yards apart can be wrong.
Indeed , on multifaced clocks, it's not unknown for one face to show a time several minutes different from another face on the same clock.

The talk is a taster for a work I am on regarding timing at the time of the murders, that will address the issues with Hanbury street too.

Steve

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I am less concerned about the clocks than the fact that Long waited 3 days before deciding that she might like to become part of the news by concluding that she had seen the killer with the victim. Mrs Richardson commented on the bustle in the street that morning due to market day so Long has picked one couple out of many, she told the coroner, to be Chapman and Jack. We don't know how many bodies she was shown to make an identification, but I don't buy her story.

That comment of Jeff's that you boldened is the truest statement I have seen on this forum in a long time. Jeff, perhaps you should use it as your signature.

Cheers, George

Yes that statement by Jeff is indeed a cracker I agree with you, probably the best comment I've seen that should be used to remind us all just how uncertain and fallible each theory is with so many unknowns to chose from.

Again well done Jeff.