Help On Some Details

[Wickerman]

Is it fair to apply the phrase "these tactics" to The Star alone? 'Clipping' and creating the illusion that it's your paper 'braking the news' was common to all papers.

Yes, "leather apron" was all the fault of The Star (Harry Dam), but in the age of yellow press were it's tactics really anymore more aggressive or wrong than many newspapers? There were times when it was The Star who tempered or refrained from publishing the most grotesque details.

Me thinks, sometimes they are too quickly maligned.

This exchange concerns the way the Star reworked agency articles because they are the ones - the only ones, who labelled Kennedy's story as "worthless".

The Press Association report was bought, reworked & published by many evening papers on the 10th. Most gave the story without breaking it up with subheadings, and those that did applied informative headings like: The man with the Black Bag, or Women accosted by supposed Murderer.
Only the Star chose a controversial heading like; A Story of Little Value.
Unlike the other examples that ring an air of truth - the man did have a black bag & he was viewed with suspicion. The heading given by the Star had no bearing on the truth. They don't even justify their own heading with some criticism.

In fact in other versions, all published at the same time so likely reflective of the original P.A. article, one line reads:
"This woman's statement, if true - and there is very little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time.....etc."

Is edited down by the Star to weaken its impact. They wrote:
"This woman's statement, if true, establishes the time....etc."

Coupled with the biased subheading it is clear how the Star are manipulating the reader. We can see how well they succeeded across time because even readers here today seem to think that because the Star say it was worthless, then it must have been worthless.

These readers pay no attention to the fact the original version seem to suggest there was "very little reason for doubting its veracity".
Canned phrase or not, omitting that line and adding that it was "worthless" is misrepresenting the story, as the Star did not interview Mrs Kennedy they are not in a position to know.

[Wickerman]

......In this instance, the report begins with the words "a reporter...says", which isn't the same as "a Star reporter...says". If it had been the latter, then I'd take a dimmer view.

Anytime an article begins with, "a reporter writes...", the implication is always their own reporter. That is how deception works even today. Say something vaguely true and hope the reader doesn't pick up on the deception.

[Simon Wood]

If it was a newspaper's own story, wouldn't a sub-editor preface an article with "our reporter writes"?

[rjpalmer]

In this era of politicians yelling "Fake News!" whenever they get caught with their trousers down or their hands in the till, I am more than a little leery of the standard Ripperological truism that "official" reports are invariably superior to journalistic efforts. That view has been spouted on this forum for twenty years, but it is far too simplistic. If historians only relied on "official" documentation, then Watergate never happened, the Profumo affair was a minor misunderstanding, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident was precisely what LBJ said it was. If that's truly your best guess on how to proceed, then you might as well go the full nine yards and accept that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, call it a day, and take up stamp collecting or Frisbee golf.

Scotland Yard was notoriously tight lipped--often justifiably so. As such, very often the only existing source of information we have is a newspaper report, and this isn't necessarily always a bad thing. I would suggest stop bitching about it, and just be resolved to the fact that we have to use the grey matter inside ours skulls, and also realize that some discrimination may be required. Okay, soap box kicked aside. Carry on.

[Trevor Marriott]

As did some, if not most, other newspapers on occasion, and it needn't imply that any of them intended to make the reader believe that it was their own work. In this instance, the report begins with the words "a reporter...says", which isn't the same as "a Star reporter...says". If it had been the latter, then I'd take a dimmer view.

I don't think we should make a great play of whose work it was, it is the accuracy of what was reported that matters. There are bound to be ambiguities where different reporters interviewed the same person, at different time of the day or night, likewise where newspapers used agency reports, editors could doctor them to suit there own purposes, and that was in all cases to sell newspapers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sunny Delight]

In this era of politicians yelling "Fake News!" whenever they get caught with their trousers down or their hands in the till, I am more than a little leery of the standard Ripperological truism that "official" reports are invariably superior to journalistic efforts. That view has been spouted on this forum for twenty years, but it is far too simplistic. If historians only relied on "official" documentation, then Watergate never happened, the Profumo affair was a minor misunderstanding, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident was precisely what LBJ said it was. If that's truly your best guess on how to proceed, then you might as well go the full nine yards and accept that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper, call it a day, and take up stamp collecting or Frisbee golf.

Scotland Yard was notoriously tight lipped--often justifiably so. As such, very often the only existing source of information we have is a newspaper report, and this isn't necessarily always a bad thing. I would suggest stop bitching about it, and just be resolved to the fact that we have to use the grey matter inside ours skulls, and also realize that some discrimination may be required. Okay, soap box kicked aside. Carry on.

Kosminski to me was like a Colin Stagg type figure. I mean that insofar as senior detectives had themselves convinced this was the perpetrator of the crime. Nothing and no one could convince them otherwise. Anderson especially seems to have convinced himself Kosminski was the Ripper. Swanson seems a bit more reserved but happy to row in behind his former 'master'. Interestingly the real killer Robert Napper has some real parallels with the Ripper although Napper was a much more organised killer. He also didn't target Prostitutes but the evolution from ferocious stabbing in his first murder to less stabbing more mutilation in his second murder is significant if one is adament that Tabram couldn't possibly be a Ripper victim.

[Sunny Delight]

Just as an add on to the above- Napper suffers from delusions maybe similar to Kosminski. It is said he believes he has a Nobel honor and that he believes his right hand was blown off my an IRA bomb but it grew back. He also has delusions of grandeur and being a VIP. I suppose in this regard he mirrors Kosminski to an extent who obviously had severe delusions and hallucinations!!

[Michael W Richards]

Seems odd to me that with all these late night sightings of Mary... and the missed sightings, she must have threaded the needle with her timing. Liz in in the arched passageway at the tuck shop, noting Marys room as dark and quiet when she went down the way, Mary Ann is in and out a few times after noting Marys room as quiet, according to Jon, 2 women living in the courtyard apparently in the same residence give the exact same story about the earlier sighting, and Georgie comes forward saying his old pal Mary was out looking for some borrowed money before being seen with a gentleman she takes back to her room...

Who is it again that actually sees Mary leave her room after 11:45pm on Thursday?

[Sam Flynn]

Who is it again that actually sees Mary leave her room after 11:45pm on Thursday?

It would have taken less than a minute for Mary to have left her room and disappear into Dorset Street and beyond. If she did go out again, then the fact that nobody seems to have spotted her doing so is hardly surprising.

[DJA]

Seems odd to me that with all these late night sightings of Mary... and the missed sightings, she must have threaded the needle with her timing. Liz in in the arched passageway at the tuck shop, noting Marys room as dark and quiet when she went down the way, Mary Ann is in and out a few times after noting Marys room as quiet, according to Jon, 2 women living in the courtyard apparently in the same residence give the exact same story about the earlier sighting, and Georgie comes forward saying his old pal Mary was out looking for some borrowed money before being seen with a gentleman she takes back to her room...

Who is it again that actually sees Mary leave her room after 11:45pm on Thursday?

Strongly suspect Blotchy and Hutchinson are the same person.

Setting Mary up for Jack and then keeping a watch from across the street.

[Sunny Delight]

Strongly suspect Blotchy and Hutchinson are the same person.

Setting Mary up for Jack and then keeping a watch from across the street.

So Blotchy is Hutch? Blotchy is seen with Mary over 2 hours before Hutch reports seeing her and he is spotted loitering by Sarah Lewis. It will take a far fetched imagination to even remotely link Hutchinson and Blotchy let alone come up with a scenario where Hutchinson is Blotchy and has set Mary up to be killed by a monster and a maniac whilst he keeps watch over 2 hours later after being seen with her. Madness.

[Michael W Richards]

It would have taken less than a minute for Mary to have left her room and disappear into Dorset Street and beyond. If she did go out again, then the fact that nobody seems to have spotted her doing so is hardly surprising.

Well Sam, we know that Liz was inside the arched accesway to the courtyard at the tuck shop before she went down further into the court into the side door. When she did, Marys room was quiet and dark.... and we also know that Mary Ann went into her room just after 1, when she still heard singing. When she came out again, the room was quiet and dark. She she was out, for all we know, she may have been working close to the entrance to the courtyard, and still she doesnt see Mary leave.

So, we have reason to believe that Marys singing and the state of her room changed shortly after 1:00 and before 1:30, and we know that she didnt leave via the archway because Liz is in it. So she leaves after 1:30, ok, then why doesnt Mary Ann see her?

There are witnesses that say they saw Mary out of the room after 11:45pm Thursday, some as late as 8am. One of them was warned that her sighting doesnt match the known evidence...which is in part that Marys body was beginning Rigor Mortis at 1:30pm. The process was slower due to the dying fires heat. The stomach contents tell us that she had not yet fully digested a meal when she was killed. The cry of murder heard at 3:45 may well mark the commencement of her murder, no witness ever came forward to claim that cry out, and it seems clear by the sources who heard it that it originated in a small courtyard, fed only by a narrow 20 foot stone tunnel, containing several rooms and residences. Based on the time it was heard, that would then lead one to conclude the cry out was made by in a small courtyard populated almost exclusively by residents. Why doesnt one of them claim that call? Mary is the only member of that court that could not later claim it.

The story you would like, based on your objection to my own, is that Mary left the room in the small window of time between the time that Mary Ann enters her room just after 1 and she leaves again shortly thereafter. Anyone that sees her after 2 has her picking up someone already. And doesnt mention anything about Marys physical state. Mary Ann thought Kelly was very drunk at 11:45. Her room is dark and quiet by 1:30am. No-one sees her leave. That points to her going to bed after 1, not going out in a small window of time to be fresh enough to solicit clients when she has been reluctant to do so for weeks now, to get money she cant spend at that time of night,... and to bring them to her room, which historically, has never occurred before. Money she didnt need that night for her doss. She was the named tenant of that room, and had a record of running arrears anyway. The Pubs were closed.

This Mary going out premise thing requires at least 2 things as proof....1, that we have any evidence she left the room after 1am, and 2, that she had a reason to want to get some money at a time of night when she cannot spend it, after she has been resisting this kind of scenario for weeks prior to her murder, and with no evident inclination to do "business" in her own room in her own name ever before.

[Michael W Richards]

So Blotchy is Hutch? Blotchy is seen with Mary over 2 hours before Hutch reports seeing her and he is spotted loitering by Sarah Lewis. It will take a far fetched imagination to even remotely link Hutchinson and Blotchy let alone come up with a scenario where Hutchinson is Blotchy and has set Mary up to be killed by a monster and a maniac whilst he keeps watch over 2 hours later after being seen with her. Madness.

Not beyond possibility, maybe if Blotchys job was to get Mary drunk, get her into the room, then leave and watch the courtyard for anyone approaching while the killer was in it. This is the only murder in all these cases where the authorities voiced an opinion 2 people may well have been involved, one that is within the Pardon wording.

[MrBarnett]

Well Sam, we know that Liz was inside the arched accesway to the courtyard at the tuck shop before she went down further into the court into the side door. When she did, Marys room was quiet and dark.... and we also know that Mary Ann went into her room just after 1, when she still heard singing. When she came out again, the room was quiet and dark. She she was out, for all we know, she may have been working close to the entrance to the courtyard, and still she doesnt see Mary leave.

So, we have reason to believe that Marys singing and the state of her room changed shortly after 1:00 and before 1:30, and we know that she didnt leave via the archway because Liz is in it. So she leaves after 1:30, ok, then why doesnt Mary Ann see her?

There are witnesses that say they saw Mary out of the room after 11:45pm Thursday, some as late as 8am. One of them was warned that her sighting doesnt match the known evidence...which is in part that Marys body was beginning Rigor Mortis at 1:30pm. The process was slower due to the dying fires heat. The stomach contents tell us that she had not yet fully digested a meal when she was killed. The cry of murder heard at 3:45 may well mark the commencement of her murder, no witness ever came forward to claim that cry out, and it seems clear by the sources who heard it that it originated in a small courtyard, fed only by a narrow 20 foot stone tunnel, containing several rooms and residences. Based on the time it was heard, that would then lead one to conclude the cry out was made by in a small courtyard populated almost exclusively by residents. Why doesnt one of them claim that call? Mary is the only member of that court that could not later claim it.

The story you would like, based on your objection to my own, is that Mary left the room in the small window of time between the time that Mary Ann enters her room just after 1 and she leaves again shortly thereafter. Anyone that sees her after 2 has her picking up someone already. And doesnt mention anything about Marys physical state. Mary Ann thought Kelly was very drunk at 11:45. Her room is dark and quiet by 1:30am. No-one sees her leave. That points to her going to bed after 1, not going out in a small window of time to be fresh enough to solicit clients when she has been reluctant to do so for weeks now, to get money she cant spend at that time of night,... and to bring them to her room, which historically, has never occurred before. Money she didnt need that night for her doss. She was the named tenant of that room, and had a record of running arrears anyway. The Pubs were closed.

This Mary going out premise thing requires at least 2 things as proof....1, that we have any evidence she left the room after 1am, and 2, that she had a reason to want to get some money at a time of night when she cannot spend it, after she has been resisting this kind of scenario for weeks prior to her murder, and with no evident inclination to do "business" in her own room in her own name ever before.

Michael,

Where do you imagine Kelly entertained her clients when she operating out of Pennington Street - apparently from a house described as a brothel, and probably the same house where she entertained a ‘strange man’ overnight shortly before she died?

In her room, I’d have thought.


Gary

[DJA]

So Blotchy is Hutch? Blotchy is seen with Mary over 2 hours before Hutch reports seeing her and he is spotted loitering by Sarah Lewis. It will take a far fetched imagination to even remotely link Hutchinson and Blotchy let alone come up with a scenario where Hutchinson is Blotchy and has set Mary up to be killed by a monster and a maniac whilst he keeps watch over 2 hours later after being seen with her. Madness.

Blotchy was seen entering number 13 at 11.45 pm.

Hutchinson claims to have left his surveillance at 2.45 am.

That's 3 hours

When do you reckon Mary Kelly ate her last meal?

How long did Jack take and when did he start?