Newspaper Inquest Reports

[Billiou]

I think we all have done this. The press reports must be abbreviated versions, highlighting things, but may be verbatim in spots. It's impossible to gain a concensus on this without the original inquest testimony.

Mike

Yes, that is how I feel about the press reports. Is it at least worth a try? It may at least remove the obvious mistakes
eg
Comment by Cross about hearing a policeman in Buck's Row: Morning Advertiser: “but I said, “No, let us go and tell a policeman””, The Star: “Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him.” The Daily Telegraph: “Just then they heard a policeman coming.” The Times: Does not report any form of this comment. Lloyd's Weekly: Reports the account from the Daily Telegraph. East London Observer: Does not report any form of this comment. The Daily News: Reports the account from The Daily Telegraph. The Echo: “You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him.” The Evening Post: “They had better go on until they saw a policeman.”
Possible Conclusion: The reporter from The Daily Telegraph obviously misheard and misreported the comment about going to tell a policeman and it is incorrect to attribute this to Cross.
I agree that a consensus on this site would be impossible, but if the obvious mistakes are identified they could be removed? More contentious items would of course be harder.
Cheers
Bill

[GUT]

Hi,

I am a newcomer to the site. One of my main hobbies is Genealogy. In Genealogy research it is stressed that you have to go back to the primary source of an event, where possible, and you should try to have two separate sources as proof of each event.
Consulting the primary source can prevent misinformation, such as an incorrect transcription of a document, from corrupting the search and leading you down an incorrect path.
I have been reading the newspaper reports of the Mary Ann Nichols Inquest and various threads to do with her murder on the site. It seems to me a lot of time is taken up with matters that refer to, for example, one newspaper report, when the matter could be resolved by looking at another newspaper or consulting the threads. In other words the newspaper's reporting of the Inquest cannot be taken at face value as being exactly what was said or had occurred, and this leads to false leads and confusion.
From what I have read in Casebook, there is no actual Inquest record ie the primary source, so we are dealing with multiple secondary sources?
So another question I have is, has anyone ever gone through the various newspaper Inquest reports and tried to come up with one, overall, as fairly accurate as we can be, record of the Inquest ie using all the newspaper reports, and therefore clarifying the confusions?
Cheers
Bill

Welcome to casebook.

Consensus? What Consensus?

[The Good Michael]

So another question I have is, has anyone ever gone through the various newspaper Inquest reports and tried to come up with one, overall, as fairly accurate as we can be, record of the Inquest ie using all the newspaper reports, and therefore clarifying the confusions?

I think we all have done this. The press reports must be abbreviated versions, highlighting things, but may be verbatim in spots. It's impossible to gain a concensus on this without the original inquest testimony.

Mike

[DJA]

The ones found under Official Documents - Inquest Testimony appear accurate.

[Billiou]

Hi,

I am a newcomer to the site. One of my main hobbies is Genealogy. In Genealogy research it is stressed that you have to go back to the primary source of an event, where possible, and you should try to have two separate sources as proof of each event.
Consulting the primary source can prevent misinformation, such as an incorrect transcription of a document, from corrupting the search and leading you down an incorrect path.
I have been reading the newspaper reports of the Mary Ann Nichols Inquest and various threads to do with her murder on the site. It seems to me a lot of time is taken up with matters that refer to, for example, one newspaper report, when the matter could be resolved by looking at another newspaper or consulting the threads. In other words the newspaper's reporting of the Inquest cannot be taken at face value as being exactly what was said or had occurred, and this leads to false leads and confusion.
From what I have read in Casebook, there is no actual Inquest record ie the primary source, so we are dealing with multiple secondary sources?
So another question I have is, has anyone ever gone through the various newspaper Inquest reports and tried to come up with one, overall, as fairly accurate as we can be, record of the Inquest ie using all the newspaper reports, and therefore clarifying the confusions?
Cheers
Bill