Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence

[David Orsam]

When reading the weeklies coverage (East London Obs., Lloyds, Weekly Dispatch, etc.) I see no justification to believe any of these publications had their own reporters present.

I agree with you Wickerman. As my list states, LWN and Weekly Dispatch were both using the reports from the Daily Telegraph reporter. The East London Observer was using the Daily Chronicle/Daily News reporter.

We can see the Evening papers had their own reporters present due to the fact their same-day coverage breaks off in the middle of the inquest.

Agreed.

As far as the Dailies go, it is hardly conceivable that the major Dailies would not have their own reporters present. If the coverage found in the Morning Post is identical to the Morning Advertiser then I think it is more likely they had some arrangement in telegraphing the story from one to the other so they both were able to publish an early morning edition.
Likewise, with the Daily News and Daily Chronicle.

Agreed.

Comparing press coverage is an interesting issue in itself.

I agree!

[Wickerman]

I don't know where you are getting your figure of 13 reporters from Simon. I have only found 10 (A-J).

When reading the weeklies coverage (East London Obs., Lloyds, Weekly Dispatch, etc.) I see no justification to believe any of these publications had their own reporters present.
In most cases they had the entire weeks Dailies plus the Evening coverage to choose from, it was cheaper for them to simply copy & edit what has already gone to press.

We can see the Evening papers had their own reporters present due to the fact their same-day coverage breaks off in the middle of the inquest.

As far as the Dailies go, it is hardly conceivable that the major Dailies would not have their own reporters present. If the coverage found in the Morning Post is identical to the Morning Advertiser then I think it is more likely they had some arrangement in telegraphing the story from one to the other so they both were able to publish an early morning edition.
Likewise, with the Daily News and Daily Chronicle.

Comparing press coverage is an interesting issue in itself.

[David Orsam]

Bizarre post Simon.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

As it has become patently obvious that you have lost your grasp on reality, I shall leave you to your fantasies.

Please do not trouble to reply.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

You have misinterpreted it if you think C1-4 are supposed to be different reporters. They are not. They are the same man. I have explained it my posts. The reason for setting them out like that is the published reports are a bit different (and the Eastern Argus and East London Observer actually contain information not in the other two)

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I took my count from your Post#47.

Did I miscount or otherwise misinterpret your post?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

I don't know where you are getting your figure of 13 reporters from Simon. I have only found 10 (A-J). The murder of Mary Ann Nichols was HUGE news over the weekend of 1/2 September, literally front page news. There was massive interest in it, so I see absolutely no reason why 10 court reporters (which includes at least 2, and perhaps more, agency reporters) would not be sent down to report on the inquest by their editors.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Thirteen reporters on behalf of nineteen newspapers at an inquest into the death of a fourpenny East End unfortunate?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

As I have already said in this thread, and included in my latest list (see #47), the reporter for the Birmingham Daily Post and the Pall Mall Gazette was the same person.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

The Pall Mall Gazette reporter must have been equally deaf.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

In estimating the possible number of journalists at Polly Nichols' inquest by pointing out the differences in various newspaper reports you appear to have dismissed the influential role of the sub-editor.

For all you know the inquest may have been covered by just two agency reporters, sent over the wire and 'subbed' by various newspapers in a number of subtle ways.

I have factored that into my thinking Simon. A classic example which springs immediately to mind is the Birmingham Daily Post reporter mishearing "Praed Street" for Brady Street. That is not a change a sub-editor would have made because it is not a mistake that would be made on paper. Equally a sub-editor would not know that a witness called "George Cross" was actually Charles Cross. I'm not claiming that I must be 100% perfect. The fact that The Times and Star reporters both thought that they heard Cross say he left his house at 3:20 is problematic but look at the style of the reports in the Times and the Star, they are totally different (and one refers to PC Myzen the other to PC Mizen). Anyway, I have thought about it, already considered the points you have raised, and I've done the best I can do while recognising that it can't be entirely fooproof.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

In estimating the possible number of journalists at Polly Nichols' inquest by pointing out the differences in various newspaper reports you appear to have dismissed the influential role of the sub-editor.

For all you know the inquest may have been covered by just two agency reporters, sent over the wire and 'subbed' by various newspapers in a number of subtle ways.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.

[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.