Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence

[David Orsam]

Regarding the Birmingham Daily Post, my conclusion was indeed that their report was from a different reporter to the other newspapers and one of the things that convinced me was his report attributing to Inspector Spratling the claim that the nearest constable to PC Neil in his division was in "Praed Street", an obvious mis-hearing of "Brady Street" and a mistake which this reporter was unique in making. Having said this, the report itself is not unique because, in respect of the first two witnesses (Spratling and Tomkins), it first appeared word for word (including the "Praed Street" error) in the Pall Mall Gazette of 3 September 1888. However, this newspaper evidently had a tight publication schedule and did not report the evidence of subsequent witnesses, including Cross, hence I had ignored it in my list. But clearly the reporter for the Birmingham Daily Post was also the reporter for the Pall Mall Gazette (for that day at least). Having done an internet search, I also see from the Papers Past website that the evidence of Cross as reported by the Birmingham Daily Post found its way, in large part, into the "The Press" (New Zealand) newspaper of 19 October 1888, sourced to the Pall Mall Gazette.

In respect of the evidence of Cross as reported by the Birmingham Daily Post of 4 Sept 1888, I thought a transcript might be helpful.

BIRMINGHAM DAILY POST, 4 SEPT 1888

"C.H. Cross, a carman, said that he left his home at half-past three on Friday morning and passed through Brady Street and Buck’s Row. When he got near the gateway of the wool warehouse in Buck’s Row, at about a quarter to four, he saw the figure of a woman on the opposite side of the road. Just at this time he saw a man coming up the row, and he said to him, “Come and look over here; here is a woman.” They went over to the body. Witness stood by the side of the deceased, and took hold of her hand, and the man raised her head. Witness finding her hand was cold said, “I believe the woman is dead.” The hand was not stiff. He then put his hand on her face, and the other man put his hand on her breast, and said, “I think she is dead.” When he found her her clothes were up to her knees. He did not notice any blood, nor that the throat was cut, as it was very dark. They then left together and met a constable near Hanbury Street. Witness said to him, “There is a woman lying down Buck’s Row on her back, and she looks to me as though she were dead.” The other man said, “I believe she is dead.” The policeman said, “All right,” and proceeded to the spot, and witness and the other man walked together to the top of Hanbury Street. The other man went down Corbett’s Court. He did not know him, but he appeared to be a carman. He did not see Police-constable Neil nor anyone except last witness. The deceased looked as if she had been outraged and had gone off in a swoon. He did not think she had been murdered. Witness was behind time that morning."

[David Orsam]

Here's my revised list of reporters in court on 3 Sept (and certainly at the time of the evidence of Mizen and Cross):

Reporter A (The Times)
Reporter B (The Star)
Reporter C1 (Daily News)
Reporter C2 (East London Observer)
Reporter C3 (Daily Chronicle, Illustrated Police News)
Reporter C4 (Eastern Argus & Borough of Hackney Times)
Reporter D (Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard)
Reporter E (Daily Telegraph, Lloyd's Weekly News, Weekly Dispatch)
Reporter F (The Echo)
Reporter G (Evening News)
Reporter H (Evening Post)
Reporter I (Globe)
Reporter J (Birmingham Daily Post, Pall Mall Gazette)

I could do an analysis of the East London Observer but it's clearly by the same reporter from the Daily News/Daily Chronicle, albeit he includes some additional information, especially descriptions of witnesses. Given the differences between that report and those in the Daily News and then differences between that and the Daily Chronicle, and then differences between those and the Eastern Argus, I have listed them separately above but all as variants of reporter "C". The Illustrated Police News report is an abridged version of the Daily Chronicle report and thus not separately listed.

So we are still at 10 different reporters who appear to have been in court that day.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi David,

A few points for you to consider

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.

The texts are different! EA and DC is clearly distinct from the DN's "The woman's legs were uncovered. " version. The missing "Her bonnet was off, but close to her head" line from the EA could be a simply copy-error, possibly caused by a compositor or editor missing the line in its entirety.

The reporters have a job to filter out what they see as unnecessary, two different reporters can come to very similar conclusions as to what their respective editors want, and therefore produce very similar articles - without being the same person.

The Eastern Argus has the text in first person, this isn't the same as making a claim that it is "verbatim"

The Pall Mall Gazette doesn't actually have Cross's/Mizen's testimonies - perhaps you should take that off the list, as a later edition may show up sometime in the future which does, - which then may be ignored as it's not recognised as being new

Here's a question for you - with which reporter did these short articles originate ?

The Star (Guernsey) 4th Sept 1888
Charles Cross, carman in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, stated that when he discovered the body on his way to work the clothes were above the knees. From the position of the body he formed the impression that the woman had been outraged.

The Citizen (Gloucester) 4th Sept. 1888
Charles Cross, carman in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, stated that when he discovered the body on his way to work the clothes were above the knees. From the position of the body he formed the impression that the woman had been outraged.

[David Orsam]

The texts are different! EA and DC is clearly distinct from the DN's "The woman's legs were uncovered. " version.

That's right, which is why I compared all three with each other. Perhaps I need to explain a bit more. There are some differences between the reports in the Daily News and the Daily Chronicle - and the version in the Illustrated Police News (which I originally used for comparison) is an abridged version of the Daily Chronicle report. These two things initially fooled me into thinking that the Daily News and Daily Chronicle reporters were two different individuals. However, when doing a full comparison between the full reports from the 4 Sept for both newspapers it became very clear to me that they must have been written by the same reporter, who either wrote slightly different versions for each newspaper or who had his words adjusted by an editor (in very similar fashion to a schoolboy copying from a textbook but changing random words slightly to make it look like his own work!). Once it is appreciated that the Daily News and Daily Chronicle reports are by the same writer then the only way to compare the shorter Eastern Argus report is to compare it against both reports. Thus, while in the extract you quoted above, the Eastern Argus wording is different from the Daily News, it is the same as the Daily Chronicle, save for the additional wording in the Daily Chronicle which also features in the Daily News. Clearly none of the reports are word for word the same and there are some differences but this task has been about deciding whether those differences mean that different reporters have been involved. In this case I am satisfied we are dealing with a common source.

The Eastern Argus has the text in first person, this isn't the same as making a claim that it is "verbatim"

No, that's right, but it does carry the evidence of Cross in quotation marks which is why I said "supposedly" verbatim (or I could have used the word "purportedly"). But it clearly isn't verbatim as can be seen from a comparison with the Standard report. The point I was making was that the words edited out of the Eastern Argus report are the same as those edited out of the Daily News/Daily Chronicle report thus identifying the source.

The Pall Mall Gazette doesn't actually have Cross's/Mizen's testimonies - perhaps you should take that off the list, as a later edition may show up sometime in the future which does, - which then may be ignored as it's not recognised as being new

I disagree because I am confident that, should a later edition of the Pall Mall Gazette ever show up, the rest of it's report will be identical to the report in the Birmingham Daily Post and thus can be ignored. I say this not only because the first half of its report is identical to the first half of the report in the Birmingham Daily Post but also because the New Zealand paper I referred to ("The Press") includes a report of the evidence of Cross sourced as being from the Pall Mall Gazette which, while abridged, is identical to that from the Birmingham paper. Also, the same logic could apply to the Evening News which, in the only known edition, reports the evidence of Mizen but not of Cross (or subsequent witnesses) but I don't think I can just ignore it.

Here's a question for you - with which reporter did these short articles originate ?

The Star (Guernsey) 4th Sept 1888
Charles Cross, carman in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, stated that when he discovered the body on his way to work the clothes were above the knees. From the position of the body he formed the impression that the woman had been outraged.

The Citizen (Gloucester) 4th Sept. 1888
Charles Cross, carman in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, stated that when he discovered the body on his way to work the clothes were above the knees. From the position of the body he formed the impression that the woman had been outraged.

There's not much to go on there but I would say it is a variation of the report from the London Evening Post of 3 Sept 1888, reproduced in full in #20 above. To edit it down to correspond to the above two reports produces this:

"Charles Cross....carman.....in the employ of Messrs Pickford and Co.... saw that....The woman’s clothes were above her knees.... As the woman was lying, she looked as though she had just been outraged."

The two differences are that the Guernsey/Gloucester report includes the word "on his way to work" which does not feature in the Evening Post, although it is obvious from the context that Cross was on his way to work, and the Guernsey/Gloucester papers refer to "Messrs Pickford" rather than "Messrs Pickford & Co" which only the Evening Standard/Morning Advertiser/Morning Post does but it seems like an editor could easily have shortened that. So I would stick with the Evening Post as my answer.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi David

Clearly none of the reports are word for word the same and there are some differences but this task has been about deciding whether those differences mean that different reporters have been involved. In this case I am satisfied we are dealing with a common source.

As I explained earlier, ultimately, the common source is the testimony given by the witness - this accounts for any supposed similarities, if the journalists present copied this verbal statement with total accuracy then each different journalist would produce the exact same report of the testimony - in these circumstances it would be impossible to calculate how many different journalist were present. If two or more reports contain exclusive correct information then this indicates they have distinct and separate origins, and this fact isn't countered by any amount of similarities between the reports.

The Daily News, Daily Chronicle and Eastern Argus are one and all, distinct and separate sources, all very similar, I agree, but still individual nevertheless

The point I was making was that the words edited out of the Eastern Argus report are the same as those edited out of the Daily News/Daily Chronicle report thus identifying the source.

The loss of the similar (in this case not identical) information from two or more different reports doesn't prove that they were produced by the same person, there may be other reasons for these similar omissions.

I disagree because I am confident that, should a later edition of the Pall Mall Gazette ever show up, the rest of it's report will be identical to the report in the Birmingham Daily Post and thus can be ignored. I say this not only because the first half of its report is identical to the first half of the report in the Birmingham Daily Post but also because the New Zealand paper I referred to ("The Press") includes a report of the evidence of Cross sourced as being from the Pall Mall Gazette which, while abridged, is identical to that from the Birmingham paper. Also, the same logic could apply to the Evening News which, in the only known edition, reports the evidence of Mizen but not of Cross (or subsequent witnesses) but I don't think I can just ignore it.

The reality is, at the moment, that none of the known examples of the Pall Mall Gazette 3 Sept 1888 contain Cross's testimony. Citing a potentially incorrect sources from the New Zealand press doesn't change that. Additionally an article can either be abridged or identical, but not both, so an article cannot be accurately described as "while abridged, is identical", the very fact that the appearance of Cross's testimony in "The Press" is abridged shows that we shouldn't make any judgements about its appearance (if it ever happened) in the Pall Mall Gazette - whether it was the same as the version in the Birmingham Daily Post or the abridged version in "The Press" or something in between the two.

So I would stick with the Evening Post as my answer.

Well, surely if the Evening Post doesn't contain all of the necessary information, it cannot be the source - and the idea that a newspaper editor is going to start randomly adding statements like he was "on his way to work" when he discovered the body, into someone inquest testimony is simply not realistic - whether it was obvious or not, they would have no reason whatever to do that.

[David Orsam]

Hi Mr Lucky,

As I explained earlier, ultimately, the common source is the testimony given by the witness - this accounts for any supposed similarities

But I already dealt with this point. I took the common source into account but the evidence which has been omitted, as well as the similarities in phrasing of the evidence which has been reported, gives the game away. In any event, it's perfectly clear that the various reporters at the inquest that day reported the same evidence in different ways otherwise all the reports would be the exactly same, which they are not.

The Daily News, Daily Chronicle and Eastern Argus are one and all, distinct and separate sources, all very similar, I agree, but still individual nevertheless

I strongly disagree and note that you haven't put forward any reasons or analysis to support this statement. You have pointed to one small difference between the Daily News and Daily Chronicle reports (which I had already considered) but that's it. Earlier you made the point that one reporter could write 600 words for one paper and 900 words for another paper but now you find a minor difference between two reports and that rules them out as being by the same person?

The loss of the similar (in this case not identical) information from two or more different reports doesn't prove that they were produced by the same person, there may be other reasons for these similar omissions.

I don't know about proving anything but ultimately, in an exercise of this nature, one has to use one's judgement. I have used mine and produced the list I did which, in the absence of any convincing arguments to the contrary, I stand by.

The reality is, at the moment, that none of the known examples of the Pall Mall Gazette 3 Sept 1888 contain Cross's testimony. Citing a potentially incorrect sources from the New Zealand press doesn't change that.

I don't find this a convincing response but, anyway, it's my list and I'm not changing it because you think the Pall Mall Gazette's report of Cross's testimony might be different when in my view, if such a later edition is found, it clearly will not be.

Additionally an article can either be abridged or identical, but not both, so an article cannot be accurately described as "while abridged, is identical"

I strongly disagree. Everything in the Pall Mall Gazette report is found in the Birmingham Daily Post report word for word. Equally, everything in the Illustrated Police News report is found in the Daily Chronicle report word for word. They are, therefore, identical and were written by the same person, which is what we are trying to establish. Obviously one can't compare the parts of those reports not included due to the abridgement but, the abridgement aside, they are identical.

the very fact that the appearance of Cross's testimony in "The Press" is abridged shows that we shouldn't make any judgements about its appearance (if it ever happened) in the Pall Mall Gazette - whether it was the same as the version in the Birmingham Daily Post or the abridged version in "The Press" or something in between the two.

I repeat that I disagree and, furthermore, think this is a nit picking point of no substance. The judgement can be made and I have made it!

Well, surely if the Evening Post doesn't contain all of the necessary information, it cannot be the source - and the idea that a newspaper editor is going to start randomly adding statements like he was "on his way to work" when he discovered the body, into someone inquest testimony is simply not realistic - whether it was obvious or not, they would have no reason whatever to do that.

You asked me with which reporter the short article in the Guernsey Star/Gloucester Citizen originated and I gave you my opinion. If you don't agree, that's fine. As I said, there isn't much to go on in that very short report. It is not purported to be a verbatim account and, as far as I am concerned, an editor faced with having to summarise a long passage of evidence into just two sentences will probably need to introduce new words to link from one part of the evidence to another. Sure, it could be another of the reporters within A-K - there isn't enough data - but there's nothing in those two sentences which scream out to me that we have a totally new and unidentified reporter in play, if that's what you are suggesting.

Just to add that I'm prepared to be persuaded by any reasoned argument that some reporters identified by me as the same are different and vice versa but I'm not seeing any such argument at the moment. I have certainly given careful consideration to the Daily News/Daily Chronicle/Eastern Argus (and East London Observer) issue and I don't feel that a claim that these reports were by different reporters is credible or sustainable.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi David,

But I already dealt with this point. I took the common source into account but the evidence which has been omitted, as well as the similarities in phrasing of the evidence which has been reported, gives the game away.

You haven't dealt with this point at all, it's a fundamental property of copying information - you can't just ignore it!

In any event, it's perfectly clear that the various reporters at the inquest that day reported the same evidence in different ways otherwise all the reports would be the exactly same, which they are not.

Each report that is clearly different (ie, not just a shorter version but one which contains different correct information) is by a different reporter and no amount of similarities counters that, as the similarities come from the common source - the witness testimony, not the reporters. The difference are a product of the journalist editing the original source - you need to study the relative differences to work out the articles origins, not the similarities.

By studying the similarities we can work the order the information first appeared in, and to some degree, what the original statement actually was

I strongly disagree and note that you haven't put forward any reasons or analysis to support this statement. You have pointed to one small difference between the Daily News and Daily Chronicle reports (which I had already considered) but that's it. Earlier you made the point that one reporter could write 600 words for one paper and 900 words for another paper but now you find a minor difference between two reports and that rules them out as being by the same person?

? I haven't pointed to one small difference at all - I have demonstrated that they can not be copies of each other.

Are you claiming that one journalist produced three articles simultaneously? rather than in a sequence - this simply isn't possible, he only has two hands for a start.

I don't find this a convincing response but, anyway, it's my list and I'm not changing it because you think the Pall Mall Gazette's report of Cross's testimony might be different when in my view, if such a later edition is found, it clearly will not be.

You asked if any one had any news reports of Mizen/ Cross that weren't on your list - so I have pointed two out, the Birmingham Daily Post and the one in Guernsey Star and Gloucester Citizen.

Rather than acknowledge this, you feel the need to claim that the report in the Birmingham Daily Post was already in the Pall Mall Gazette and you already knew about it, similarly, you claim that the other report is basically of no consequence!

I repeat that I disagree and, furthermore, think this is a nit picking point of no substance. The judgement can be made and I have made it!

This all getting rather egotistical!

You asked me with which reporter the short article in the Guernsey Star/Gloucester Citizen originated and I gave you my opinion. If you don't agree, that's fine.

It's not a question of whether I agree or not - your answer was incorrect. - in fact there is no clear definite answer (which was what I was trying to suggest)

[Mr Lucky]

Hi David

Just to add that I'm prepared to be persuaded by any reasoned argument that some reporters identified by me as the same are different and vice versa but I'm not seeing any such argument at the moment. I have certainly given careful consideration to the Daily News/Daily Chronicle/Eastern Argus (and East London Observer) issue and I don't feel that a claim that these reports were by different reporters is credible or sustainable.

Were the articles written by three different authors, or were the three articles produced by one reporter ?

If one author produced the three articles, they would be produced in a series rather than at the same time, the first article produced during the witness testimony would be the primary source - the secondary and tertiary articles would effectively be copies of this primary source. This primary source would be the article that contained all of the information found in the other two

So which of the three articles is the primary source ?

Example 1)

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.

Here DN - contains additional true information "the opposite side"*. This means that EA + DC cannot be the primary source of the information in DN

* "He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway" Daily Telegraph 4 Sept. 1888
* "he saw a figure of a woman on the opposite side of the road." Birmingham Daily Post 4 Sept. 1888
-----

Example 2)

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.

Both DC and EA have exclusive and true information, "I would not touch her" and "shift her" , neither one can be the original source for the other: However, they could both have used DN as their primary source

* "He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her." - Star 3 Sept 1888
-----

Example 3)

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 and DC contain additional true information "tried to pull her clothes down"* not found in DN

DN can not be the original source for EA and DC

* "When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left.
Did you touch the clothes? - No, Sir." - Echo 3 Sept 1888

Conclusion
EA + DC cannot be the primary source of DN
Both DC and EA have exclusive and true information, neither one can be the original source for the other
DN cannot be the primary source for EA and DC

Neither EA,DN or DC can be the primary source

Therefore, all three are separate sources despite their many similarities.

The 3 articles were written at the same time by different people, they have not been written at different times by the same person.

[David Orsam]

Neither EA,DN or DC can be the primary source

Hi Mr Lucky - the mistake you are making is a very simple one. You keep referring to "the primary source". But my point is that there is no "primary source". It's the same reporter. Once you get to grips with that you will understand why one report will have a little bit more information than another. I suggest that one of two things has happened. Either the reporter has been paid three times by three different newspapers for a report of that day's hearing, probably requiring different numbers of words, and has thus made small adjustments to his reports so that they are not 100% identical or the relevant editors have done it. Once you keep that in mind and compare all three with each other it should become clear to you that they are all authored by the same person.

[David Orsam]

Mr Lucky, I didn't understand your first post until I read your second (and even then still don't understand all of it) but I have explained above the mistake that I think you are making. I will pick up your other points as briefly as possible.

Hi David,

You haven't dealt with this point at all, it's a fundamental property of copying information - you can't just ignore it!

I did deal with the point and explained why the fact that the reporters are all reporting the same evidence does not explain the similarities in so far as the same things do not appear in all the reports. As far as I am concerned, it is you who is ignoring this important point.

Each report that is clearly different (ie, not just a shorter version but one which contains different correct information) is by a different reporter and no amount of similarities counters that, as the similarities come from the common source - the witness testimony, not the reporters. The difference are a product of the journalist editing the original source - you need to study the relative differences to work out the articles origins, not the similarities.

That's exactly what I have been doing. Studying the differences. But you cannot rule out the fact that they have been written by the same person simply because there are a few small differences. You need to look at the bigger picture.

? I haven't pointed to one small difference at all - I have demonstrated that they can not be copies of each other.

With respect, you haven't demonstrated any such thing.

? Are you claiming that one journalist produced three articles simultaneously?

No, of course not.

? You asked if any one had any news reports of Mizen/ Cross that weren't on your list - so I have pointed two out, the Birmingham Daily Post and the one in Guernsey Star and Gloucester Citizen.

That's right and I included the Birmingham Daily Post in the list (and thank you for that) but the two sentences in the Guernsey Star/Gloucester Citizen can hardly be dignified with the term "report" and there is way too much doubt about it to be able to identify a new reporter and even if I did there's no point because it's so short.

Rather than acknowledge this, you feel the need to claim that the report in the Birmingham Daily Post was already in the Pall Mall Gazette and you already knew about it, similarly, you claim that the other report is basically of no consequence!

I'm sorry if you feel I didn't acknowledge you. I thought I had by adding the Birmingham Daily Post in the list of reporters and by transcribing in full the report of evidence of Cross which I had never seen before and which I clearly said was new information. The fact of the matter is that the first half of the report WAS already in the Pall Mall Gazette, I can't ignore that fact, and the reporter for the Pall Mall Gazette WAS the same reporter as the Birmingham Daily Post reporter. I'm not sure what you want me to do or say here but I fully acknowledge that you found a new report of Cross' evidence (and, further, what we knew already from the Pall Mall Gazette was not very important because it only contained a few non-controversial witnesses), the Cross evidence was the important bit.

This all getting rather egotistical!

In view of your complaint above, I'm not going to comment except to repeat that I'm open to persuasion if I have identified as duplicates reports which are different and vice versa but I have not yet been so persuaded.

It's not a question of whether I agree or not - your answer was incorrect. - in fact there is no clear definite answer (which was what I was trying to suggest)

Well if there's no clear answer, how can I possibly be incorrect?

I think it is important, however, to be cautious about identifying separate reporters because, otherwise, we will just end up using one report by one reporter to corroborate facts in another report by the exact same reporter which then produces a misleading result, just as for example in the Appendix C that you produced earlier an extract from the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian report was included along with an extract from the Times despite those extracts being word for word identical and the Walthamstow report having come from the Times. I made the mistake myself in using the Daily News to corroborate the Daily Chronicle - and believe me when I say that if I thought there was any credible chance of arguing that they were by different reporters I would have done so - but on further analysis it became clear to me that they simply must have been written by the same chap and I conceded this point and amended by list accordingly.

[Scott Nelson]

Either the reporter has been paid three times by three different newspapers for a report of that day's hearing, probably requiring different numbers of words, and has thus made small adjustments to his reports so that they are not 100% identical or the relevant editors have done it.

What about newspapers obtaining copies of the legal transcript of the proceedings and using selected bits?

[David Orsam]

What about newspapers obtaining copies of the legal transcript of the proceedings and using selected bits?

We can rule that out because, while the Central Criminal Court employed shorthand writers, there were none present at a coroner's inquest and thus no transcript was ever produced (and the reporters would not have been able to obtain the depositions).

[Mr Lucky]

Hi David,

Sorry about the delay - I've got better things to do.

Hi Mr Lucky - the mistake you are making is a very simple one. You keep referring to "the primary source". But my point is that there is no "primary source".

I have indeed made a series of mistakes. Non, however, are the ones you are suggesting.

One mistake was assuming you had a genuine interest in how many journalist were at the inquest. Another mistake was thinking any sort of mutual benefit would come from communicating with you. Another mistake I made was providing the 'reasoned argument' you asked for. As soon as I've wasted my time providing it, you're shifted the goal post and ignored it.

Your arguments about similarity are persuasive and nothing more, they have no basis beyond what you personally want to believe.

The central idea that the journalist needed to produce different testimony for each newspaper and news agency, for the same witness is an absurdity to begin with. As is the notion that you have detected this rogue journalist and unveiled his dastardly plan by noticing the very similarities that these differences were supposed to mask.

Before I actually put any effort into this at all, I asked you a simple but specific question about your approach, starting with this;- "All the journalist share a common source, the witnesses verbal statement, now lost." and ending with this "Is your approach any different?"

To which you replied

"The way you have expressed it Mr Lucky is basically what I have been doing with, perhaps, an element of intuition thrown in."

THIS ISN'T TRUE as you've demonstrated above with your claim that "there is no primary source", So why you can't have displayed some common courtesy and simply answered "No, that's not what I'm doing at all" instead of wasting my time demanding 'reasoned' arguments to counter what turns out to be your belief system.

Additionally, to correct some of your points;-

But my point is that there is no "primary source". It's the same reporter.

No, the primary or common shared source is the witnesses verbal testimony

But you cannot rule out the fact that they have been written by the same person simply because there are a few small differences.

Yes, I can. It's a fundamental property of copying. Additionally they are not "small differences", they are complex errors which demonstrate that the three articles were created at the same time from a single source common to all, and not produced as a series.

I'm sorry if you feel I didn't acknowledge you.

I haven't made the claims you're ascribing to me about 'acknowledgement' at all, and I think what you're demonstrating here, putting words in my mouth really needs to stop before it becomes a habit.

Well if there's no clear answer, how can I possibly be incorrect?

? because you claimed that there was a clear answer - you said it was the Evening Post.

I think it is important, however, to be cautious about identifying separate reporters because, otherwise, we will just end up using one report by one reporter to corroborate facts in another report by the exact same reporter which then produces a misleading result, just as for example in the Appendix C that you produced earlier an extract from the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian report was included along with an extract from the Times despite those extracts being word for word identical and the Walthamstow report having come from the Times.

I thought this had already been clearly explained, however, once again -

The point of noting that the same text appears in near identical form in different newspapers at the same time was to demonstrate the high accuracy of the final composing/printing process, and to demonstrate how little editing is done to these agency telegrams by the regional press. Perhaps this is only important for those who want to make an attempt to understand what's happened to the information that remains extant, rather than those who just want to 'believe something'.

those extracts being word for word identical

This is not true, and this was explained the last time this erroneous claim was produced around a page ago or so;- Simply put, there are enough minor typographical differences to demonstrate that these two copies are not from the same compositor's plates, yet the information is exactly the same as they share the same agency telegram as a common source, examples like this would actually be important to any one with a genuine interest in the subject.

[David Orsam]

Mr Lucky, I am, in equal measure, astonished, mystified and disappointed by your response, not just for its unnecessary hostility, its failure to engage with me in what could have been a collaborative process and the number of petty, yet misguided, points it contains, but also in the way it reveals a complete lack of understanding of what I have been saying in this thread. I had wondered if you would come back to me with a sensible explanation of what you meant by "primary source", in that you were referring to the reporter's notebook, but your post shows that you don't even understand what a primary source is. I was tempted to do a point-by-point rebuttal of your posting but, as you say you have better things to do, I won't bother and will leave it to the intelligent and fair minded readers of this thread to form their own views. I will just restrict myself to correcting perhaps your most glaring misunderstanding in which you respond to my point in #55 that, "in the Appendix C…you produced earlier an extract from the Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian report…along with an extract from the Times despite these extracts being word for word identical" by saying, "This is not true". However, it IS true as I will now demonstrate by quoting from your Appendix C:

[2] He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.

[8] He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.

[2] The Times 4 Sept. 1888

[8] Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian 8 Sept. 1888

THOSE are the extracts I was referring to and they ARE word for word identical (and come from two reports obviously written by the same person). Compositor's plates have got nothing to do with it. The issue is that the same source was being used to corroborate itself.

[David Orsam]

For those genuinely interested in identifying the number of reporters at the inquest, take note of the following two paragraphs. The first, in green, is the last paragraph of the report of the Nichols inquest in the Daily Chronicle of 4 September 1888 (not available online), the second, in blue, as can be seen on this site, is the last paragraph of the report of the Nichols inquest in the Daily News of 4 September 1888 – but for reasons of full disclosure I should say that, in the original, it is separated from the inquest report by a thin black line. I have highlighted in bold the differences between the two paragraphs.

Daily Chronicle

Notwithstanding every effort, the police engaged in investigating the murder of Mary Ann Nicholls have to confess themselves baffled, their numerous inquiries having yielded no positive clue to the perpetrator of the crime. At the conclusion of the inquest Detective-inspector Abberline and Detective-inspector Helson were busily engaged in the matter, but have not elicited any new facts of importance. A large number of constables are engaged upon the case. Crowds of spectators continue to visit the scene of the murder in Buck's-row. The funeral of the deceased woman will probably take place to-day.

Daily News

Notwithstanding every effort, the police engaged in investigating the murder have up to the present time to confess themselves baffled, their numerous inquiries having yielded no positive clue to the perpetrator of the crime. At the conclusion of the inquest Detective-Inspector Abberline and Detective-Inspector Helson resumed their investigations, but they have not elicited any new facts of importance. A large number of constables are engaged upon the case. Crowds of spectators continue to visit the scene of the murder in Buck's row. The funeral of the deceased woman will probably take place to-morrow.

In the event, neither of the reports was correct because the funeral actually took place on 6 September.

Now, I think I can say that only the most perverse person in the world would say that those two paragraphs have different authors. It is self-evident that the same person wrote them and some minor amendments have been made.

For that reason, we know that there is a 100% definite link between the reporting in the Daily Chronicle and the reporting in the Daily News.

It is in THAT context and with THAT in mind that we must compare the entirety of the inquest reports in the two newspapers. You can get a suggestion of this from the evidence of Cross which I have posted in this thread. And, when doing the comparison, if you also compare both reports against the report in the Eastern Argus, it becomes even clearer that all three are authored by the same reporter.

Moreover, in doing the comparison, one needs to consider all the other reports of the inquest and bear in mind evidence that has been omitted from both the Daily News and Daily Chronicle but which has been included in other reports. Further, one needs to look at any mistakes that have been made in other reports but not in the Daily News or Daily Chronicle. One must also look at the similar phraseology used in both the Daily News and Daily Chronicle but not in other reports in other newspapers. When one does this, one then has to make a judgement as to whether the reports were written by the same person bearing in mind that they are both reporting the same witness evidence. Because, yes, there are some differences (a few more significant than have been identified in this thread) – and it was these differences that initially led me to the conclusion that the Daily News and Daily Chronicle reports were by different people – but having now considered the entirety of the reports and all the things I have just mentioned, it has become crystal clear to me that they were authored by the same reporter.

You can trust my judgement or not as the case may be; you can do the comparisons yourself if you want and prepare your own list. I don't mind. But I have no doubt that we cannot use the Daily News to corroborate what is in the Daily Chronicle (or Eastern Argus or East London Observer) and vice versa.