Apart from having to fit the report into the available space, it was generally impossible to give a verbatim account of what was said - as you will be aware from personal experience, people can go all round the houses to say something simple, and in court a coherent story only emerges as a consequence of long and detailed questioning. The newspapers therefore paraphrased, gave the gist of what was said. As they still do. What was included was also dependent on what the sub-editor thought was important. That is why the newspaper reports are different. It has nothing to do with what the reporters wrote down at the inquest. And the same applies to almost all the material available to you, be it the surviving inquest documents or the statements given to the police immediately after the crime was committed. This is one reason why you should compare as many newspaper accounts of the same thing as possible.
Quite so Paul.
A number of theorists try to play the official inquest account against the press versions, or one press version against another, as if there are different versions of the same inquest doing the rounds.
This is absolutely wrong, it is always necessary to collate the various accounts to obtain a more complete picture of inquest testimony, not contest one against the other.
All the press accounts tell the same story, but they do not all provide the same pieces of the same story, for the very reasons you clearly outlined above - thankyou.