Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 35 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 36 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 44 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Jack's early inspiration? - by Joshua Rogan 46 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 50 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 1 hour and 5 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (83 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (14 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: good riddance-have fun in Hell - (6 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (3 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2651  
Old 03-24-2015, 02:51 AM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moste View Post
Are you listening to Del ,Pete?
maybe not a good idea. also , most of us probably can't read short hand anyhow.
I think that you would get a transcript of the shorthand notes, not just the notes.

One problem is that I am not sure that the copyright in the notes or a transcript from them would be with the Bedfordshire and Luton Archive Services, so they would not be in a position to sell copies of them.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2652  
Old 03-24-2015, 07:35 AM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire View Post
I think that you would get a transcript of the shorthand notes, not just the notes.

One problem is that I am not sure that the copyright in the notes or a transcript from them would be with the Bedfordshire and Luton Archive Services, so they would not be in a position to sell copies of them.
Hi Spitfire

2 points;

Firstly, I agree that it would be a transcription of the shorthand notes so would therefore not be a problem in comprehension.

Secondly, they may well restrict access on the basis of copyright but most libraries allow photocopying of books for academic and research purposes. The main problem one would encounter is republishing it without obtaining any necessary permissions.

As an afterthought, I cannot imagine them letting anyone take a complete copy of the whole darn thing though. But that is just my opinion.

Del
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2653  
Old 03-24-2015, 08:19 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 726
Default

The Daily Telegraph had detailed court reports. I wonder if these would show any further information.

A couple of other newspaper reports I would like to see:

- 1966 interview with Louise Anderson in the News of the World;

- 1961 interview with Olive Dinwoodie by Don Smith in the Daily Herald.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2654  
Old 03-24-2015, 08:53 AM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
The Daily Telegraph had detailed court reports. I wonder if these would show any further information.

A couple of other newspaper reports I would like to see:

- 1966 interview with Louise Anderson in the News of the World;

- 1961 interview with Olive Dinwoodie by Don Smith in the Daily Herald.
Hi Nick

Your best bet by far would be to go to the British Library's newspaper archive at St Pancras in London.

http://www.bl.uk/reshelp/findhelpres...ves/index.html

This, unfortunately, for most of us provincial wallahs involves a fair old schlep but they do have everything I believe.

Del
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2655  
Old 03-24-2015, 01:15 PM
propatria27 propatria27 is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 52
Default Trial transcript

This is the reply I got from Bedfordshire and Luton Archives:

Thank you for your enquiry. The transcripts were produced by Marten, Meredith & Co of 11 New Court, Carey Street WC2 and I imagine copyright rests with them or their successor firm and it might be more appropriate for you to approach them. This is especially so given (a) the bulk of the transcripts – we have 21 volumes at upwards of 50 pages each and staff time spent copying these would be excessive and very costly for you and (b) we do not have the complete transcripts – days 9 and 10 are missing as are the first 55 pages of day 11. You are, of course, welcome to come and consult them in our public searchroom.

Pete
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2656  
Old 03-25-2015, 03:51 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 726
Default

Hmm ... interesting.

Previously on this forum it was stated that the evidence of Nudds was missing from the transcripts, but Nudds gave evidence on day 5.

It appears that the missing files concern the evidence of Detective-Superintendent Acott!

Day 9
Day10
Day11
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2657  
Old 03-25-2015, 07:18 AM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB View Post
Hmm ... interesting.

Previously on this forum it was stated that the evidence of Nudds was missing from the transcripts, but Nudds gave evidence on day 5.

It appears that the missing files concern the evidence of Detective-Superintendent Acott!

Day 9
Day10
Day11
Cor...what a surprise!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2658  
Old 03-25-2015, 07:47 AM
ansonman ansonman is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 140
Default Unreasonable doubt or time to chuck it all in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Come on, Spitfire. That's grossly out of context and you know it.

Where the trial was held just adds to the drip, drip effect of all the other factors - in particular, the conduct of the police and the non-disclosures - and makes the argument for an unfair trial.

OneRound
Agree entirely OR.

Notwithstanding all the other factors, the jury was sufficiently undecided after six hours of deliberation, to ask the judge for a definition of the words "reasonable doubt".

It would be interesting to know how many of the jury had some doubt and how many were sure certain. Equally interesting would be the answer to the question "what convinced the doubters that their doubt was unreasonable?".

One would hate to think it had anything to do with the fact that they'd been deliberating for 9 hours, had sat on the then longest trial in British Criminal history and wanted to go home.

Incidentally, only one of the contributors to this thread, thus far, would have joined the jury in finding Hanratty guilty, which is also interesting.

Ansonman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2659  
Old 03-25-2015, 08:41 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ansonman View Post
It would be interesting to know how many of the jury had some doubt and how many were sure certain.
As I understand it, at that time a unanimous guilty verdict was required. So if there was only one juror with doubts and wanted to know what ‘reasonable doubt’ meant, the question would have been worth asking.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ansonman View Post
Equally interesting would be the answer to the question "what convinced the doubters that their doubt was unreasonable?".
I don’t think the judge’s hardline response to the question (“You have to be sure of the guilt of the accused before you find him guilty.”) left any wriggle room for the doubters. They must have subsequently changed their minds and became sure.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2660  
Old 03-25-2015, 09:26 AM
Sherlock Houses Sherlock Houses is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ansonman View Post
One would hate to think it had anything to do with the fact that they'd been deliberating for 9 hours, had sat on the then longest trial in British Criminal history and wanted to go home.
It's my feeling that this came into play., Ansonman. If so, to what degree has to remain speculative of course. The all male jury would have chosen a chairman [nowadays a chairperson] to preside, so to speak, over the deliberations of it's members. This was the one and only time during the course of the trial that the court sat on a Saturday. Who knows, perhaps a few jurors were wishing they were elsewhere, in a social context, on a Saturday evening/night, traditionally the most popular night of the week for millions of Britons.

If that excellent 1957 Sidney Lumet directed courtroom drama "12 Angry Men" is any kind of yardstick then I can imagine a fair amount of subtle [and not so subtle] bullying/persuasion went on in that closed off jury room by the more vociferous members. Almost 10 hours of deliberating is a lengthy time and there must have been considerable doubt in the minds of some jurors as to the guilt of James Hanratty. The doubters, in effect, allowed their minds to be changed, alas. A copy of the trial transcript had earlier been requested by the jury but was denied as it was deemed impracticable.

At 9.10pm that evening the jury returned their guilty verdict and were then free to enjoy the rest of their Saturday night. I wonder how many [if any] of them headed to the nearest pub for a quick drink before heading home.

Last edited by Sherlock Houses : 03-25-2015 at 09:29 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.