PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Wickerman]

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

Really?
Cast your eyes over the testimony of P.C. Long.
Why do you think Crawford asked him this question?

Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"?

The placing of "not", and the alternate arrangement of the graffiti was not entered into evidence until Det. Halse took the stand after P.C. Long.
So how could Crawford have known in advance how Halse was going to arrange the wording if Halse's statement had not already been put to writing in advance of the Inquest?

The surviving Eddowes Inquest papers do not include the initial witness statements, like we have for the Kelly Inquiry.

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

Of course I read it, but two wrongs do not make a right.

The Coroner decides which witnesses to summons to an Inquest. For him to do this he requires written statements from each witness, these are provided by the police.

I argue when there is an obvious need to draw attention to errors.

[Debra A]

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

Hi Trevor

Where would something titled "official description", of an unidentified, murdered woman's appearance and clothing (including piece of course apron), printed verbatim in most of the newpapers on Oct 1st, most likely come from though?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

Where would something titled "official description", of an unidentified, murdered woman's appearance and clothing (including piece of course apron), printed verbatim in most of the newpapers on Oct 1st, most likely come from though?

Hi Debs
Well the post mortem was carried out early on Oct 1st after the lists were prepared. I can only assume that somehow the press were either told or they found out in their inimitable way. In time to go to press that same day.

But it doesn't matter does it because the term piece still keeps coming up which the all important word not "apron"

[Trevor Marriott]

Really?
Cast your eyes over the testimony of P.C. Long.
Why do you think Crawford asked him this question?

Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"?

The placing of "not", and the alternate arrangement of the graffiti was not entered into evidence until Det. Halse took the stand after P.C. Long.
So how could Crawford have known in advance how Halse was going to arrange the wording if Halse's statement had not already been put to writing in advance of the Inquest?

The surviving Eddowes Inquest papers do not include the initial witness statements, like we have for the Kelly Inquiry.




Of course I read it, but two wrongs do not make a right.

The Coroner decides which witnesses to summons to an Inquest. For him to do this he requires written statements from each witness, these are provided by the police.

I argue when there is an obvious need to draw attention to errors.

I beg to differ in this case the coroner would have been supplied with a list of the witnesses only.

So are you saying I am wrong, and Evans and Skinner are wrong? There is no reference to any pre written statements.

Its a case you wanting to belive there were to prop up you weak argument.

[Monty]

I beg to differ in this case the coroner would have been supplied with a list of the witnesses only.

So are you saying I am wrong, and Evans and Skinner are wrong? There is no reference to any pre written statements.

Its a case you wanting to belive there were to prop up you weak argument.

How are significant witnesses identified and summoned to inquest if the coroners office did not have any statements to mull over and decide?

Did they have a Psychic Sally department also?

Monty

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
Well the post mortem was carried out early on Oct 1st after the lists were prepared. I can only assume that somehow the press were either told or they found out in their inimitable way. In time to go to press that same day.

But it doesn't matter does it because the term piece still keeps coming up which the all important word not "apron"

Hi Trevor
You don't think the 'Official description' might have been given to the press by police for printing to aid with identification?

'Piece' comes up because Eddowes wasn't wearing a full apron when her body was found .The question is whether she was wearing a piece (which she would be had it originally been a full apron and a piece was cut off by her killer)
The mortuary descriptions place the coarse white piece of apron among Eddowes' belongings while the circulated description places it as part of her clothing:

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor
You don't think the 'Official description' might have been given to the press by police for printing to aid with identification?

'Piece' comes up because Eddowes wasn't wearing a full apron when her body was found .The question is whether she was wearing a piece (which she would be had it originally been a full apron and a piece was cut off by her killer)
The mortuary descriptions place the coarse white piece of apron among Eddowes' belongings while the circulated description places it as part of her clothing:

Hi Debs
You cannot ignore the lists which were made at the time. As I have said before newspaper reports are secondary and we have seen many examples of the inconsistencies between them.

And as I keep saying those inconsistent reports will be used by those who want to believe what is contained in them because it suits their purpose.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs
You cannot ignore the lists which were made at the time. As I have said before newspaper reports are secondary and we have seen many examples of the inconsistencies between them.

And as I keep saying those inconsistent reports will be used by those who want to believe what is contained in them because it suits their purpose.

Hi Trevor
I'm not ignoring the list made at the mortuary, I acknowledged that it listed the piece of apron as a belonging rather than an item of clothing. What I asked was if the 'official description' where the piece of apron is listed as an item of clothing was given to the press by police?

If not, who else would be in a position to give an 'official' description than appeared verbatim in just about every newspaper on 1st Oct and says the victim had a piece of course white apron as part of her clothing?

If it was a description circulated by police and distributed through the news agencies it is a primary source, even if it did appear in a newspaper (which was the biggest way to get it circulated and aid identification). It isn't one or more inconsistent report(s), it is describing itself as an 'official description'.

[Trevor Marriott]

How are significant witnesses identified and summoned to inquest if the coroners office did not have any statements to mull over and decide?

Did they have a Psychic Sally department also?

Monty

You really think you are a SA dont you ?

Where is there any mention of any official police statements in the Eddowes case ?

In 1888 it was the role of the police to present witnesses who they had found by reason of their investigation who might be able to assist the coroner. They were brought before the coroner so that they could give their statements in the form of depositions in court. We do not know if the City of London coroners court operated differently to the Met coroners

As to the credibility of the police officers who "Identified the apron" who you seek to rely on. I notice Pc Long didn't even bother to take his pocket book to the inquest yet he stands up and gives his evidence of the top of his head and that back fired on him did it not by reason of questions that were put to him which he had difficulty in answering

Do you know it make me laughs with you and others on here one minute you are ramming down the throats of people the source book and other references and singing the praises of the authors. Now because what they write doesn't sit well with you and others suddenly they are wrong and they are wrong because to accept what they write would mean accepting what I have said as being correct, and perish the thought that you and others would have to admit that I was right about something.

The thing is that you and others are not even prepared to agree that some of the new theories could just be right and bring into question all the old theories, Its gotta to be a case of no nothing can change what we know so lets all band to together and seek and destroy all of these new theories.

I wonder over the past 20 years or so out of all the new theories that have been advanced by researchers outside of this ripper community and JTR Forums, what if any have been accepted by those who sit here and there and hold court?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor
I'm not ignoring the list made at the mortuary, I acknowledged that it listed the piece of apron as a belonging rather than an item of clothing. What I asked was if the 'official description' where the piece of apron is listed as an item of clothing was given to the press by police?

If not, who else would be in a position to give an 'official' description than appeared verbatim in just about every newspaper on 1st Oct and says the victim had a piece of course white apron as part of her clothing?

If it was a description circulated by police and distributed through the news agencies it is a primary source, even if it did appear in a newspaper (which was the biggest way to get it circulated and aid identification). It isn't one or more inconsistent report(s), it is describing itself as an 'official description'.

We don't know how the papers got that information just because it says official that shouldn't be taken literally

Newspapers write what they want if you want to accept the newspaper report as being correct and you choose to disregard the official list then that is your choice.

You and others are playing around with words "A piece of white apron with her clothes" doesn't mean she was wearing it. Likewise the term "found on her" or "apparently wearing" there is a major doubt about this issue.

What happened to witnesses simply saying "which she was wearing" you have to ask why do so many witnesses fail to use this important term.

[Monty]

You really think you are a SA dont you ?

Where is there any mention of any official police statements in the Eddowes case ?

In 1888 it was the role of the police to present witnesses who they had found by reason of their investigation who might be able to assist the coroner. They were brought before the coroner so that they could give their statements in the form of depositions in court. We do not know if the City of London coroners court operated differently to the Met coroners

As to the credibility of the police officers who "Identified the apron" who you seek to rely on. I notice Pc Long didn't even bother to take his pocket book to the inquest yet he stands up and gives his evidence of the top of his head and that back fired on him did it not by reason of questions that were put to him which he had difficulty in answering

Do you know it make me laughs with you and others on here one minute you are ramming down the throats of people the source book and other references and singing the praises of the authors. Now because what they write doesn't sit well with you and others suddenly they are wrong and they are wrong because to accept what they write would mean accepting what I have said as being correct, and perish the thought that you and others would have to admit that I was right about something.

The thing is that you and others are not even prepared to agree that some of the new theories could just be right and bring into question all the old theories, Its gotta to be a case of no nothing can change what we know so lets all band to together and seek and destroy all of these new theories.

I wonder over the past 20 years or so out of all the new theories that have been advanced by researchers outside of this ripper community and JTR Forums, what if any have been accepted by those who sit here and there and hold court?

Firstly, let me point you in the direction of admins rules. You need to understand those before we carry on.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=259632#post259632

Im fully aware of the process Trevor, and where duties and responsibilities lay. ALL coroners courts fundamentally operate the same, especially in regards evidence gathering, and witnesses. Something you may know if you bothered to research it.

Witnesses are not initially bought to the coroner at all. Initially statements are taken by the police. When an inquest is called, the coroners offices will notify the police and request said witness statements, which are then viewed. From this viewing, the coroners office decide who shall be called to inquest.

Therefore, all statements are taken prior to inquest, and so, are known. Inquests into sudden deaths are purely to determine what happened and how, what was the cause, and what is to blame, if anyone.

Witnesses simply do not arrive on the day of hearing and present their statements for the first time. So no, Robinsons testimony was not laid a fortnight after the murder of Eddowes, it was noted the day after, when he identified the body as the woman he arrested the day before.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, a pure rant because you have been shown, yet again, to be lacking in your knowledge.

If you want to change the course of this field, then I suggest you educate yourself as to the facts both of the case, and the legalities involved.

Then I'll listen. Until then....

Monty

[Wickerman]

I beg to differ in this case the coroner would have been supplied with a list of the witnesses only.

At the opening of the Inquest the Coroner has no script to follow, he would have no idea where this story begins or where it ends if it were not for the police statements.

In order for the questioning to follow some semblance of order the Coroner & Crawford need to know which witness to bring forward first, in what sequence they should appear, and what to ask each witness.
To enable them to do this they use the statements provided to them by the police.
The individual police statements are used as a prompt for the subsequent questioning to begin.

So are you saying I am wrong, and Evans and Skinner are wrong? There is no reference to any pre written statements.

There is no reference within the Kelly Inquest to the existence of police statements, they were simply retained as part of the file. It is apparent these same police statements were not retained within the Eddowes file.

Answer me this:
How was Coroner Macdonald able to caution Mrs Maxwell before he heard her evidence?
"The Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other people's."

He already knew what she was about to say, because he had her police statement in his hands.
Likewise with Coroner Langham.

[The Good Michael]

Witnesses are not initially bought to the coroner at all. Initially statements are taken by the police. When an inquest is called, the coroners offices will notify the police and request said witness statements, which are then viewed. From this viewing, the coroners office decide who shall be called to inquest.

Therefore, all statements are taken prior to inquest, and so, are known. Inquests into sudden deaths are purely to determine what happened and how, what was the cause, and what is to blame, if anyone.

Witnesses simply do not arrive on the day of hearing and present their statements for the first time. So no, Robinsons testimony was not laid a fortnight after the murder of Eddowes, it was noted the day after, when he identified the body as the woman he arrested the day before.

We've been talking about this for years. How could Trevor not understand these things?

This is why there is almost nothing new uncovered in these inquests...the East End murder inquests. The coroner already know pretty much everything before the inquests begin. Even Kelly's inquest which was admittedly short, was long enough to determine that she was murdered. Yet people are always looking for something sinister there. Thanks for putting this information out there, yet again.

Mike

[Debra A]

We don't know how the papers got that information just because it says official that shouldn't be taken literally

Newspapers write what they want if you want to accept the newspaper report as being correct and you choose to disregard the official list then that is your choice.

You and others are playing around with words "A piece of white apron with her clothes" doesn't mean she was wearing it. Likewise the term "found on her" or "apparently wearing" there is a major doubt about this issue.

What happened to witnesses simply saying "which she was wearing" youlae have to ask why do so many witnesses fail to use this important term.

Trevor, we know the City Police telegraphed a description of Eddowes and her clothing to the Met Police. She was unidentified, police were anxious to identify her, it makes sense to me that the published 'official' description was the City Police description and was indeed official. They were hoping for an identification from the published description.

You are saying that because the apron piece wasn't listed with her clothing items in the mortuary inventory, instead it was listed with her belongings, that means she wasn't wearing it, that's fair enough but then when I show you that the newspapers printed the official description of Eddowes and her clothing but not her belongings and the apron piece is among those items it doesn't count!

[Carol]

Hi all,

Thank you very much to everyone who has replied to me. I really appreciate it! I have even more to think about now.

Just one thing - the mortuary list of clothing mentions:
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief.

The 'Official Description' printed in the newspaper that Debs posted (Thanks, Debs!) mentions:
Large white handkerchief round neck.

So there's one more inconsistency!

Carol