PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

G'day Trevor

And can I ask where are there any rules about leading questions in inquests, it is perfectly proper for some people to ask leading questions, generally it is called cross examination.

A leading question posed to a witness that is phrased so as to suggest or elicit a particular answer desired by the attorney conducting the examination

There are no specific rules I was merely highlighting the use of them as seen in the conflicting inquest and newspaper reports

[GUT]

A leading question posed to a witness that is phrased so as to suggest or elicit a particular answer desired by the attorney conducting the examination

There are no specific rules I was merely highlighting the use of them as seen in the conflicting inquest and newspaper reports

Trevor

I can assure you I know exactly what a leading question is, and it is also not only permissible but advisable to ask leading questions in cross examination. Indeed Counsel assisting the coroner at an inquest who dd not ask leading questions would be derelict in his duty to the Court. Likewise it is totally correct for the Coronor himself to ask leading questions.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your reference to leading questions.

[Trevor Marriott]

Coroners Court Provedure

I stated in an earlier post that with regards to the Eddowes inquest I believed that the first time any of the witnesses made statements was when they gave their testimony at the inquest and then signed depositions, which are now referred to. This brought into question the memory of certain police witnesses who gave their evidence two weeks after the murder.

It was suggested by others that in fact statements were taken and the coroner had sight of these before the inquest. I was also reminded of the Kelly inquest where clearly police statements were take in advance. That appears to be the way the Metropolitan Police dealt with witnesses and coroners courts at that time.

However, it would appear that in the case of Eddowe whose murder came under the jurisdiction on The City Police that may not have been the case.It would also appear that I am not the only person to question this.

It appear that Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner authors of The Sourcebook also cane to that same conclusion. Mat I refer you all to page 240 at the top which follows on from the last witness at the inquest Dc Halse, I quote

"Despite the fairly detailed statements of the various witnesses contained in the previous inquest papers. they would appear to be the initial evidence of these witnesses"

[GUT]

I stated in an earlier post that with regards to the Eddowes inquest I believed that the first time any of the witnesses made statements was when they gave their testimony at the inquest and then signed depositions, which are now referred to. This brought into question the memory of certain police witnesses who gave their evidence two weeks after the murder.

It was suggested by others that in fact statements were taken and the coroner had sight of these before the inquest. I was also reminded of the Kelly inquest where clearly police statements were take in advance. That appears to be the way the Metropolitan Police dealt with witnesses and coroners courts at that time.

However, it would appear that in the case of Eddowe whose murder came under the jurisdiction on The City Police that may not have been the case.It would also appear that I am not the only person to question this.

It appear that Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner authors of The Sourcebook also cane to that same conclusion. Mat I refer you all to page 240 at the top which follows on from the last witness at the inquest Dc Halse, I quote

"Despite the fairly detailed statements of the various witnesses contained in the previous inquest papers. they would appear to be the initial evidence of these witnesses"

I still don't see how any of that n any way relates to the use of leading questions.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

I can assure you I know exactly what a leading question is, and it is also not only permissible but advisable to ask leading questions in cross examination. Indeed Counsel assisting the coroner at an inquest who dd not ask leading questions would be derelict in his duty to the Court. Likewise it is totally correct for the Coronor himself to ask leading questions.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make with your reference to leading questions.

In that case counsel and the coroner were both very derelict in their duty in not asking questions, which were highly relevant to the police officers evidence in relation to Eddowes supposedly having been seen wearing an apron, and the subsequent fiasco of the officers carrying out a non positive identification of a full white apron by being shown two pieces of white apron which they already knew the history of in advance.

[Trevor Marriott]

I still don't see how any of that n any way relates to the use of leading questions.

It doesn't it was in reference to a previous issue that I raised which some posters thought I was wrong

[Monty]

On what basis would these city constables be called?

Monty

[Wickerman]

It was suggested by others that in fact statements were taken and the coroner had sight of these before the inquest. I was also reminded of the Kelly inquest where clearly police statements were take in advance. That appears to be the way the Metropolitan Police dealt with witnesses and coroners courts at that time.

Trevor.
Have you considered how the Coroner knew which citizens to call as witnesses from the entire population of the city?

What do you think guided him?

[Carol]

Hi fellow Casebookers,

At the risk of boring everyone I'd like to point out something.

When I go into 'Victims' (just under Introduction, top left of Casebook 'Home Page') and press on Catherine Eddowes' photograph, then I come to the details of her murder, etc. On that page it definitely says:

Wearing at the time of her murder:
Etc., etc., etc. NO MENTION OF AN APRON.

Possessions:
Odds and ends PLUS '1 piece of old white apron with repair'.

What I'm trying to say is that IF Eddowes was still wearing her apron at the time of the murder then Casebook should rectify the above because it is very misleading to poor souls like me who are late to Jack the Ripper and have to rely on other people's expertise.

Carol

[Wickerman]

Hi Carol.

We have Dr Gordon Brown, at the mortuary, describing the portion of apron still attached to the body.

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?

[Brown] Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

[Debra A]

Hi fellow Casebookers,

At the risk of boring everyone I'd like to point out something.

When I go into 'Victims' (just under Introduction, top left of Casebook 'Home Page') and press on Catherine Eddowes' photograph, then I come to the details of her murder, etc. On that page it definitely says:

Wearing at the time of her murder:
Etc., etc., etc. NO MENTION OF AN APRON.

Possessions:
Odds and ends PLUS '1 piece of old white apron with repair'.

What I'm trying to say is that IF Eddowes was still wearing her apron at the time of the murder then Casebook should rectify the above because it is very misleading to poor souls like me who are late to Jack the Ripper and have to rely on other people's expertise.

Carol

Hi Carol
The official descriptions of Catherine's appearance and clothing, circulated in newspapers c Oct 1st, included a 'piece of course white apron'. None of her belongings were listed in that description.
I think there must have been genuine confusion about the apron piece at first because there was a chunk of it missing yet it was still tied on the body and the missing piece had not yet been found.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Carol
The official descriptions of Catherine's appearance and clothing, circulated in newspapers c Oct 1st, included a 'piece of course white apron'. None of her belongings were listed in that description.
I think there must have been genuine confusion about the apron piece at first because there was a chunk of it missing yet it was still tied on the body and the missing piece had not yet been found.

Hi Debs
I am not going initiate another apron piece fiasco on here. But the official mortuary lists clearly show that she was not wearing one when the body was stripped and the lists prepared.

Whatever anyone thinks or wants to believe those are irrefutable facts because they were made at the time, you cant get better evidence than that. If she had been wearing one then it would have still been tied to the body and the GS piece would be recorded as missing and the apron would have come off in order of how the clothing was removed. This same procedure for removing clothing and personal effects and noting them at the time is still used today.

But the lists do show she was in possession amongst her personal effects of one old piece of white apron emphasis on piece. Had she been wearing an apron i would have expected that to read "One old white apron with piece missing"

Newspaper reports are unreliable and secondary evidence and as has been stated they conflict with other evidence. Dr Brown states in his inquest testimony the mortuary piece only had a string attached (not strings) you cant tie an apron around you with just one string.

In the Telegraph he is quoted as saying " Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body"

This is incorrect because The GS piece did not have arrive at the mortuary until after 5.20am and by then the body had been stripped and the clothing and personal effects listed on separate list by Insp Collard who doesn't mention her actually wearing an apron. In his testimony he uses the term. "Apparently wearing" In the Times report he says "found on her"

Carol is obviously troubled by the discrepancies and has ever right to be but it is important that she is made aware of the full facts appertaining to both sides of the argument in order for her to make her mind up where she stands on this issue.

[Debra A]

Hi Trevor
I'm sure there are early reports that say Catherine had a ribbon tied around her neck..I genuinely think there was confusion because a body presented with something unrecognisable still tied to the body (half an apron) and it wasn't until the Goulston St piece was found later that it made any sense.
The official description, including her wearing a 'coarse piece of apron' was issued when Catherine was unidentified and police were looking for information.
The police do release things through the press don't they?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor.
Have you considered how the Coroner knew which citizens to call as witnesses from the entire population of the city?

What do you think guided him?

Clearly there was a list of witnesses but that doesnt mean he knew what they were going to say,

Do you just argue for the sake of arguing ?

Did you not read my post re page 240 in sourcebook ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor
I'm sure there are early reports that say Catherine had a ribbon tied around her neck..I genuinely think there was confusion because a body presented with something unrecognisable still tied to the body (half an apron) and it wasn't until the Goulston St piece was found later that it made any sense.
The official description, including her wearing a 'coarse piece of apron' was issued when Catherine was unidentified and police were looking for information.
The police do release things through the press don't they?

Hi Debs
But we don't know where that newspaper got its material from so as I said previous its secondary, and the lists are primary, so primary is always best evidence

I fail to see why people wont accept the reports I keep highlighting the same inconsistencies but they fall on deaf ears.

Is it the case that there are so many on here who have been with this mystery for years that they have become brainwashed into believing all that has propped this mystery up for all those years

Here we have a case of Carol, a poster who has questioned the accepted facts as I have previous, but the gang is out and the posts are forthcoming all feeding her unsafe and unreliable facts in what appears to be an attempt to push her back towards the old theory.

Out in the big wide world there are many people who have an interest in this mystery who have been misled by what they have seen and read and they are now waking up to that fact, and like Carol prepared to look at some of the important aspects on this case in a totally different light.

It wouldnt be so bad if the dissenters would acknowledge that there is now a doubt. but no they read what they want to read and interpret it in a way that still suits their old outdated beliefs.

Proof of that is plain to see on here where they keep referring to the newspaper articles that suit those beliefs.