Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[Robert]

The Dover Express calls him H Charles Cross.

[David Orsam]

The Dover Express calls him H Charles Cross.

Yes, indeed, and the report in the Dover Express of 7 Sept first appeared in the Globe of 3 Sept (and was also repeated in the Woodford Times of 7 Sept) but I'm not seeing any similarity at all between the reports in the Globe and the Birmingham Daily Post.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi David,

IIRC, The Birmingham Daily Post had employed their special London correspondent only that year, and someone on the boards has already identified who he was. However, he does give us a quite peculiar perspective on the Nichols murder it appears to me that he was 'out of the loop' to some degree.

When I first started with my look at the testimony from the Nichols inquest, I don't think the Birmingham Daily Post was available on line - along with many others - however I recall that my original view was that there were at least 3 journalist at the first day, and at least 7 at the second day, with a strong possibility of more.

To briefly explain my approach, approximately this;- All the journalist share a common source, the witnesses verbal statement, now lost. If the journal copied this verbal witnesses statement with total accuracy it would be impossible to distinguish between them and therefore impossible to know how many journalist were present. It is only the existence of differences between the various extant versions available in the archives that enables any attempt to calculate the number of journalist present. These textual differences, or errors, have four main causes, and most are differences caused by omission, ie, the journalist simply failed to record everything that the witness had said.

The other potential textual differences between the various different accounts can be caused by the addition, substitution and translocation of text, and it is the identification of these types of differences which then can be used to create a unique signature to each particular article. If these unique signatures display any information which is exclusive then they are likely separate people.

Is your approach any different?

[David Orsam]

The way you have expressed it Mr Lucky is basically what I have been doing with, perhaps, an element of intuition thrown in. In respect of the Eastern Argus, let's compare the way that newspaper reported the evidence of Cross compared with the Daily News and Daily Chronicle, using some colour coding to assist visually:

EASTERN ARGUS

A carman in the employ of Messrs. Pickford & Co., named Charles A. Cross, who found the body said: "I left home about half-past 3 on Friday morning to go to work, and in passing through Buck's Row, saw something lying against a gateway. I could not tell in the dark what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet, but stepping into the road, I saw that it was the body of a woman. Just then I heard a man - about 40 yards off - approaching from the direction that I myself had come from. I waited for the man, who started on one side as if afraid that I meant to knock him down. I said "Come and look over here, there's a woman." We then went over to the body. I took hold of the hands of the woman, and the other man stooped over her head to look at her. Feeling the hands cold and limp, I said "I believe she's dead;" her face felt warm. The other man put his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if it is." The man suggested that we should move her, but I would not touch her. He then tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice that her throat was cut."

The interesting thing about it is that the whole thing is in the first person. Now look at the Daily News and Daily Chronicle reports, which are in the third person. Even allowing for the fact that they are reporting the same evidence it seems to me to be too close to the Eastern Argus report to be by different reporters:

DAILY NEWS

"Charles A. Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years. On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work, and passing through Buck's row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come. He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down. The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." 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." The woman's legs were uncovered. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head. The witness did not notice that her throat was cut...."

DAILY CHRONICLE

"Charles A. Cross, a carman, said that he was in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. He left home about half-past three o'clock on Friday morning to go to work, and in passing through Buck's-row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. He could not tell in the dark what it was at first. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but, stepping into the middle of the road, he saw that it was the body of a woman. At this time he heard a man--about 40 yards off--approaching from the direction that witness had himself come from. He waited for the man, who started on one side, as if afraid that witness meant to knock him down. Witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." They then went over to the body. Witness took hold of the hands of the woman, and the other man stooped over her head to look at her. Feeling the hands cold and limp, witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her." The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut."

In the first place, all reports give the witness's name as "Charles A. Cross" (compared to variations in other newspapers such as "George Cross", in the Times, "Carmen Cross", in the Star, "Charles Allen Cross" in the Standard. Morning Post/Advertiser, "H. Charles Cross" in the Globe, "C.H. Cross" in the Birmingham Daily Post and "Chas. Andrew Cross" in the Telegraph/LWN).

Let's now break the evidence down bit by bit:

EA: I left home about half-past 3 on Friday morning to go to work

DN: On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work

DC: On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work

EA: and in passing through Buck's Row, saw something lying against a gateway

DN: and passing through Buck's row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway

DC: and in passing through Buck's Row, saw something lying against a gateway.

EA: I could not tell in the dark what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet

DN: In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet

DC: He could not tell in the dark what it was at first. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet

EA: but stepping into the road, I saw that it was the body of a woman

DN: but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman.

DC: but, stepping into the middle of the road, he saw that it was the body of a woman

EA: Just then I heard a man - about 40 yards off - approaching from the direction that I myself had come from

DN:At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come.

DC: At this time he heard a man - about 40 yards off - approaching from the direction that witness had himself come from.

EA: I waited for the man, who started on one side as if afraid that I meant to knock him down.

DN: He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down.

DC: He waited for the man, who started on one side, as if afraid that witness meant to knock him down

EA: I said "Come and look over here, there's a woman"

DN: The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman."

DC: Witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman."

EA: We then went over to the body. I took hold of the hands of the woman, and the other man stooped over her head to look at her.

DN: They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her.

DC: They then went over to the body. Witness took hold of the hands of the woman, and the other man stooped over her head to look at her.

EA: Feeling the hands cold and limp, I said "I believe she's dead;" her face felt warm.

DN: The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm.

DC: Feeling the hands cold and limp, witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm.

EA: The other man put his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if it is."

DN: The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is."

DC: The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is."

EA: The man suggested that we should move her, but I would not touch her.

DN: 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."

DC: The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright.

EA: He then tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

DN: The woman's legs were uncovered. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head.

DC: The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head.

EA: I did not notice that her throat was cut.

DN: The witness did not notice that her throat was cut...

DC: Witness did not notice that her throat was cut....

The Eastern Argus also includes the sentence "On being further questioned, this witness said the deceased looked then as if she had been outraged, and had gone off in a swoon". There is no comparison in the Daily News but the Daily Chronicle includes the sentence "In reply to further questions, the witness said the deceased looked to him at the time as if she had been outraged, and had gone off in a swoon".

Now, for me, when analysing that comparison, it seems to me that the Eastern Argus reporter is providing essentially the same report as the Daily News/Chronicle, just in the first person. We can see that in almost every case where the Daily News version is slightly different to the Eastern Argus, the Daily Chronicle version is the same as in the Eastern Argus.

You might say that the above is to be expected of reporters reporting the same evidence but just consider how the Standard, which also used the first person, reported what Cross said:

EVENING STANDARD (AND MORNING POST AND MORNING ADVERTISER)

"I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a wool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had done, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head, and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, Yes, she is." he then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees, we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood."

For me, it is instructive that the Standard reporter includes information that happens to be in neither the Eastern Argus report or the Daily News/Chronicle reports, despite the fact that the Eastern Argus is supposedly providing a verbatim quote. Thus, ignoring the reference to "Parson street", which may or may not have existed, we can see that the Standard has Cross say that he "crossed Brady street" to get to Bucks Row but the Eastern Argus, like the Daily News/Chronicle does not refer to Brady Street. Nor does the Eastern Argus, or Daily News/Chronicle, refer to the gateway as being to a "wool warehouse", nor to the tarpaulin looking like "a man's tarpaulin" (but all three of the Eastern Argus, Daily News and Daily Chronicle reports refer to a "tarpaulin sheet"). There is also no mention in the Argus, News or Chronicle of going to tell a policeman of what they had found. So for these and other similar reasons, I am satisfied that the reports must be by the same reporter, just with some modifications.

The Eastern Argus does not report the evidence of PC Mizen but, from the rest of the report of the day's hearing at the inquest, it looks to me like a summary version of the longer Daily News and Daily Chronicle reports. There are one or two small differences, which I won't bother with here, but they can, I think, be explained.