PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Hatchett]

Hi,

You also have to take into account that the policemen would be referring to their notebooks, and presumably the medical men would have notes that they compiled at the time to refer to.

But what is very important, as someone pointed out very early on in this thread, if there was no apron to connect the graffitti in Goulston Street, then why all the attention?

It doesnt make sense, other wise.

Best wishes.

[Trevor Marriott]

It still does not alter the fact that the coroner would be aware of Robinsons testimony before the inquest was opened, how else does he determine who to call to inquest?

Ergo, it is misleading to state Robinsons recall was not fresh.

Monty

The coroner would not be aware of the evidence beforehand they didn't make statements. If they had have done why would they go to the trouble of taking down the evidence again in written form in court in the form of deposition, What is a deposition a written statement on oath, They could have simply handed in the original statements as evidence.

I would hazard a guess that a police officer must have drawn up the witness list based on the result of their enquiries but nothing more than that.

I say again the inquest testimony and that reported in the press is so conflicting that it is unsafe to rely on it. Surely even you can see the many discrepancies?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi,

You also have to take into account that the policemen would be referring to their notebooks, and presumably the medical men would have notes that they compiled at the time to refer to.

But what is very important, as someone pointed out very early on in this thread, if there was no apron to connect the graffitti in Goulston Street, then why all the attention?

It doesnt make sense, other wise.

Best wishes.

Well we know a piece of apron was found at Goulston St. So you would expect police activity in the first instance as they connected it to the murder in the first instance

[Monty]

The coroner would not be aware of the evidence beforehand they didn't make statements. If they had have done why would they go to the trouble of taking down the evidence again in written form in court in the form of deposition, What is a deposition a written statement on oath, They could have simply handed in the original statements as evidence.

I would hazard a guess that a police officer must have drawn up the witness list based on the result of their enquiries but nothing more than that.

I say again the inquest testimony and that reported in the press is so conflicting that it is unsafe to rely on it. Surely even you can see the many discrepancies?

Of course they (the police) compiled statements, in the form of reports. The 'trouble' is due to the fact inquest is a separate procedure, and not part of the investigation. What do you think happened? Robinson was told to hold back noting anything of significance until he was summonsed?

You use press reports to support your argument. Now you state its unreliable. Inquest testimony should always take priority over secondary press account.

Monty

[Hatchett]

Hi there, Trevor,

Where do you get this from that witnesses at an inquest can simply hand in a witness statement?

That is utter bosh!

Inquests were "live " proceedings.

[Dave O]

The coroner would not be aware of the evidence beforehand they didn't make statements. If they had have done why would they go to the trouble of taking down the evidence again in written form in court in the form of deposition, What is a deposition a written statement on oath, They could have simply handed in the original statements as evidence.

I would hazard a guess that a police officer must have drawn up the witness list based on the result of their enquiries but nothing more than that.

Hi Trevor,

The coroner would be aware, witnesses would make statements to his officer prior, or they would have access to police statements.

In the usual event, he issued his warrant to hold an inquest based on a preliminary investigation by his officer, during which the officer conducted interviews with potential witnesses. In Dr. Macdonald's records, it's usual to find the officer's request for a warrant placed in the file (often with the original notification of death from police or doctor). I suppose this was to preserve a justification for holding the inquest. In some cases, there's also an account of what the witnesses had to say that the officer took down prior to inquest, as well as lists of witnesses like you've mentioned.

As far as a coroner having received police statements prior to inquest, the Mary Kelly inquest is a relevant example of that. There are a few notes added to them in Macdonald's hand (probably he referred to them during the inquest), and they have been rearranged from their original order and numbered in a manner that corresponds to the order of the witness' appearances at the inquest, with Barnett taken out of order and put up front as it was common to have someone to identify the body testify first.

In a murder or manslaughter case, it would be a cause of complaint for a coroner to substitute a police statement in lieu of a sworn deposition taken down by or in front of him. This apparently happened (somewhere I've seen a case of Wynn Westcott doing something similar), but was bad procedure. At this time, people accused of murder at inquest could be tried on the basis of a coroner's inquisition, substituted for a grand jury.

In all other cases, there was no obligation to take down testimony at all--rather the coroner did so for his own benefit. In these cases, they're more slack. Often you'll see testimony taken down by two hands--presumably the officer writing down what he's been told by the witness (a time-saving effort perhaps), with additions in Macdonald's hand as he questioned them.

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

The coroner would be aware, witnesses would make statements to his officer prior, or they would have access to police statements.

In the usual event, he issued his warrant to hold an inquest based on a preliminary investigation by his officer, during which the officer conducted interviews with potential witnesses. In Dr. Macdonald's records, it's usual to find the officer's request for a warrant placed in the file (often with the original notification of death from police or doctor). I suppose this was to preserve a justification for holding the inquest. In some cases, there's also an account of what the witnesses had to say that the officer took down prior to inquest, as well as lists of witnesses like you've mentioned.

As far as a coroner having received police statements prior to inquest, the Mary Kelly inquest is a relevant example of that. There are a few notes added to them in Macdonald's hand (probably he referred to them during the inquest), and they have been rearranged from their original order and numbered in a manner that corresponds to the order of the witness' appearances at the inquest, with Barnett taken out of order and put up front as it was common to have someone to identify the body testify first.

In a murder or manslaughter case, it would be a cause of complaint for a coroner to substitute a police statement in lieu of a sworn deposition taken down by or in front of him. This apparently happened (somewhere I've seen a case of Wynn Westcott doing something similar), but was bad procedure. At this time, people accused of murder at inquest could be tried on the basis of a coroner's inquisition, substituted for a grand jury.

In all other cases, there was no obligation to take down testimony at all--rather the coroner did so for his own benefit. In these cases, they're more slack. Often you'll see testimony taken down by two hands--presumably the officer writing down what he's been told by the witness (a time-saving effort perhaps), with additions in Macdonald's hand as he questioned them.

Dave

Hi
I am sorry but think you are wrong.

Depositions were used in both coroners courts and in criminal committal proceedings here in The UK up until the late 1970`s. As far as coroners courts in 1888 were concerned I have highlighted the procedure in a previous post which I not intend to repeat

I am sure the medical men when giving their evidence referred to their notes made at the time or as soon as practicable. These notes were probably their own unofficial statements.

But a big smokescreen has now been put up to try to cover the fact that the inquest testimony and newspaper reports are unsafe and unreliable due to conflict's in both. These conflicts now put a big dent in a major part of this Ripper mystery which many on here are having difficulty in coming to terms with.

The real hard evidence is contained in the official police reports written at the time which clearly show she wasn't wearing an apron. I fail to see why these are rejected in favor of police officers who gave evidence two weeks later and were asked leading questions about the apron.

If you accept the officers verbal testimony as being correct then there has to be good explanations for dismissing the police reports, and so far no one has put forward any plausible ones.

I also mention somethings which have not been mentioned today with regard to the above which add even more conflicting evidence to the pot and that is firstly from Insp Collards inquest testimony and deposition "I produce a portion of the apron which the deceased was apparently wearing" emphasis on apparently !

Dc Halse`s inquest testimony "I saw the body stripped" does that mean the body was already stripped when he saw it? he then says "I saw a portion of the apron was missing" nothing about seeing her wearing the apron.

[Dave O]

You make me smile, Trevor. Be well.

Dave

[Hunter]

Thanks for trying to add perspective, Dave.
I mean it sincerely.

And with the Eddowes inquest there was the addition if the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford, who effectively acted as a liaison between the coroner's office and the police.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Trevor,

The real hard evidence is contained in the official police reports written at the time which clearly show she wasn't wearing an apron.

No City of London Police reports exist for the Catherine Eddowes murder case.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Good evening Roy,

Ah, but they do.

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Why did the police ask Frederick Foster to draw up the plans of the route from Mitre Square to Goulston Street ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Why did the police ask Frederick Foster to draw up the plans of the route from Mitre Square to Goulston Street ?

Maybe it was forward thinking on his part, knowing that Ripperologists 126 years later would not be able to assess and evaluate the written words correctly so he drew pictures to make it easy for them

Even that hasnt worked

[Jon Guy]

Maybe it was forward thinking on his part, knowing that Ripperologists 126 years later would not be able to assess and evaluate the written words correctly so he drew pictures to make it easy for them

Even that hasnt worked

Thanks for that, Trev.
Yes, the map does confirm what was recorded at the time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for that, Trev.
Yes, the map does confirm what was recorded at the time.

But it still hasn't helped you assess and evaluate it in a logical way