Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence

[Robert]

The Dover Express calls him H Charles Cross.

[David Orsam]

Mr Lucky, I largely agree with you and, indeed, the point you make about a single reporter filing multiple reports is the precise complication that I was referring to in respect of the Eastern Argus report. In fact, looking at this point further, I can see that there is a very close relationship between the reports in the Daily Chronicle and the Daily News and I think that those on the 2nd day of the inquest were probably filed by the same reporter who is also responsible for the reports in the Illustrated Police News, East London Observer and the Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times. I will post more on this in due course. I do have in mind the points you make, as well as other possibilities, such as a reporter missing some parts of the evidence for whatever reason and "borrowing" from one of his mates. At the same time, I think that some of the reports are so different that it's possible to say that they are by different reporters and a number of them contain mistakes that are exclusive to those reports which is a good indicator of them being by different people.

I would also make the point that in starting this thread I was focussed on the evidence of Mizen and Cross and I was largely comparing the reports of what these two witnesses said. If those reports are word for word identical that was good enough for me to assign them to a single reporter. But the list is certainly open for debate and discussion.

I've now taken a quick look at the Birmingham Daily Post report of 4 Sept 1888 and it does seem interesting at first blush because it refers to Cross as "C.H. Cross" which none of the others do and it may be that this is indeed a new one. I'll consider it further and revert.

[GUT]

I can actually top that one. I was once in court for a verdict in a major fraud trial at which there were precisely zero reporters in court at the time (the verdict, which had been expected to take some days, came in less than two hours which caught them all out), yet all the newspapers carried an identical story about the response of the main defendant to the verdict the following day which was complete fiction. So, yes, one does need to be careful with these guys.

And sometimes the report s so far from the truth it is almost funny.

[David Orsam]

I know most of the reporters often one reporter in Court only and different accounts in four or five papers.

I can actually top that one. I was once in court for a verdict in a major fraud trial at which there were precisely zero reporters in court at the time (the verdict, which had been expected to take some days, came in less than two hours which caught them all out), yet all the newspapers carried an identical story about the response of the main defendant to the verdict the following day which was complete fiction. So, yes, one does need to be careful with these guys.

[GUT]

Or three to six reports sending out say 1,000 words each and the various papers used those to write their own story.

I spend most of my time in Courts, I know most of the reporters often one reporter in Court only and different accounts in four or five papers.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi David,

Hi Mr Lucky,

No, I have never seen the Birmingham Daily Post. Is it available online do you know? Do you perhaps have a transcript?

The Birmingham Daily Post is available at British newspaper archives. I don't have any full transcriptions - if you just want a specific day send me a PM.

Just to pick up on the references in that "Appendix C" you have reproduced. The report in the Woodford Times of 7 Sept 1888 was originally in the Globe of 3 Sept 1888 while the report in the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian of 8 Sept is the same as the one in the Times of 4 Sept.

Ok Thanks, I'm not familiar with the Globe. The Times/Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian does have some very minor textual differences between the two, however they clearly share the same common source of information. It can also be important to recognise how little some of the articles actually change between different editions, as this demonstrates how little editing had been done to the original agency telegram by the individual papers' editors - this is of course quite contrary to the image that has been created in ripperology regarding this issue, that the newspaper editors simply make stuff up to sell more copies

The Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times report is a little bit more complicated and I will come back to that in due course.

Ok, I'm looking forward to seeing your analysis of this, however, I would suggest all of the reporting is more complicated than it is presumed to be - for example you appear to claim that there are 10 reporters at the 2nd day of the Nichols inquest (both morning and afternoon ?), how can you be sure that there aren't just 9 reporters and one of those is working for two different parties and thereby producing two distinct and separate reports ? perhaps a reporter who sold (for example) a 600 word report to party A and a 900 word report to party B ?

Another example;- From the first day of reporting of the Nichols murder there are two distinct Central News Agency telegrams that are remarkably similar, each beginning with the word 'Scarcely' (and the difference has nothing to do with the next word 'has'/'have') but to prove this conclusively actually requires considerable analysis, however I'm not sure we always have enough examples to be absolutely categorically sure - and I believe that this is the case with the second day of the Nichols inquest.

[David Orsam]

Hi Mr Lucky,

No, I have never seen the Birmingham Daily Post. Is it available online do you know? Do you perhaps have a transcript?

Just to pick up on the references in that "Appendix C" you have reproduced. The report in the Woodford Times of 7 Sept 1888 was originally in the Globe of 3 Sept 1888 while the report in the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian of 8 Sept is the same as the one in the Times of 4 Sept. The Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times report is a little bit more complicated and I will come back to that in due course.

[Mr Lucky]

Does this help;-

Appendix C - Charles Cross's Testimony, the proposed moving of Nichols

Press reports of Cross's Testimony, describing the proposed moving of Nichols. Only the first, the Daily Telegraph, has Cross as the originator of the suggestion and Paul as the man refusing

[1] Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.
[2] He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.
[3] He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."
[4] He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."
[5] He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."
[6] The witness's companion suggested that they should raise her, but the witness declined to do anything until a policeman arrived.
[7] He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."
[8] He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.
[9] The man suggested that we should move her, but I would not touch her.
[10] The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her."

[1] Daily Telegraph 4 Sept. 1888
[2] The Times 4 Sept. 1888
[3] The Daily News 4 Sept. 1888
[4] Echo 3 Sept. 1888
[5] The Star 3 Sept. 1888
[6] Woodford Times 7 Sept. 1888
[7] The Morning Advertiser 4 Sept. 1888
[8] Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian 8 Sept. 1888
[9] Eastern Argus and Borough of Hackney Times 8 Sept. 1888
[10] Illustrated Police News 8 Sept. 1888

Additionally the Birmingham Daily Post 4 Sept. 1888 has a substantial report of Cross's testimony without a mention of the proposed moving of Nichols.

[Mr Lucky]

I just want to correct one thing that has been annoying me - my reference to "London Weekly News" - so here is the corrected list of the 10 reporters identified at the Nichols inquest on 3 Sept 1888:

Reporter A (The Times)
Reporter B (The Star)
Reporter C (Daily News, East London Observer)
Reporter D (Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard)
Reporter E (Daily Telegraph, Lloyd's Weekly News, Weekly Dispatch)
Reporter F (The Echo)
Reporter G (Daily Chronicle, Illustrated Police News)
Reporter H (Evening News)
Reporter I (Evening Post)
Reporter J (Globe)

The Holy Grail would be to find a Reporter K.

Hello David

Have you checked the Birmingham Daily Post ?

[GUT]

I compiled a selection of 19 sources that covered the Kelly inquest. Comparing every sentence spoken by each witness (this file is 73 pgs long).
What becomes apparent is that the weekly papers copied the dailies coverage, word for word, which suggests they did not have their own reporter present at the inquest.
Typical dailies like the Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, etc., could have had their own reporters present due to the fact their coverage is not identical.
This is one reason we should not take a single preferred source for inquest coverage, but consider several sources to get a better picture of what was said.

Jon that s so true, actually the same applies today, you can live an event that is later reported in the press and read a few dfiferent papers and end up wondering if any of them were at the same eveny you took part in.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman, I'm in the process of transcribing (and will post here) the London Evening Post reports from the Stride/Eddowes/Kelly inquests - and I think that newspaper had its own reporter covering those hearings - so it will be interesting to see if their report of the Kelly inquest is different from your sources (assuming, of course, that the Evening Post is not already one of them).

Hi David.
For the most part Reynolds News copied from the Daily Telegraph. Lloyds Weekly copied from the Times. Morning Advertiser and The Standard ran almost identical versions. The Western Mail appeared to take its coverage from the Echo, ...as a few examples.

No, I have not included the Evening Post, after 19 different newspapers you tend to suffer burnout , I would like to add your Evening Post coverage if it reads as another independent version.
I keep returning to it every so often to add more, the original was posted on JTRForums some years ago. At some point I should put it up here on Casebook in the Inquests section, it's a handy ready reference.
If you want a copy you can send me your email over PM.

[David Orsam]

I compiled a selection of 19 sources that covered the Kelly inquest. Comparing every sentence spoken by each witness (this file is 73 pgs long).

Typical dailies like the Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, etc., could have had their own reporters present due to the fact their coverage is not identical.

Hi Wickerman, I'm in the process of transcribing (and will post here) the London Evening Post reports from the Stride/Eddowes/Kelly inquests - and I think that newspaper had its own reporter covering those hearings - so it will be interesting to see if their report of the Kelly inquest is different from your sources (assuming, of course, that the Evening Post is not already one of them).

[David Orsam]

Could a reporter [K] have been from the Press Association or Central News?

Hi Simon, it's not absolutely impossible but I suspect that some of the reporters within A-J are, in fact, agency reporters, hence a few of the reports appear in multiple newspapers. Having searched online regional newspapers, the reports I have found all seem to be traceable back to A-J.

[Wickerman]

Interesting..."you are wanted". An officer hearing that would have thought someone sent the men for them. Had they said, "You are needed." it would have meant nearly the same thing, but there's of course a nuanced difference. Yet, a cop hearing one, could quite simply imply the other.

Mike

That is precisely how I see the meaning.

[Wickerman]

I compiled a selection of 19 sources that covered the Kelly inquest. Comparing every sentence spoken by each witness (this file is 73 pgs long).
What becomes apparent is that the weekly papers copied the dailies coverage, word for word, which suggests they did not have their own reporter present at the inquest.
Typical dailies like the Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, etc., could have had their own reporters present due to the fact their coverage is not identical.
This is one reason we should not take a single preferred source for inquest coverage, but consider several sources to get a better picture of what was said.