Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Monty]

Referral to Notebook

Below is an extract from the Police Code of the period.

The relevant passage is section 2 of Examination of Witnesses, especially the last paragraph, which reads -

"Any writing referred to, must be produced and shown to the adverse party, if he requires it; and such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine a witness thereupon."

Now whilst this hearing was not a trial, but an inquest, this passage clearly, in my opinion, resonated with Long. The fact he initially made an error in his transcription, and had to be corrected by the Inspector, may have effected Long to such a degree he tried to get away from the embarrassment (and potential attack on his reliability) by not producing the notebook at inquest, as once produced, the notebook could be scrutinised by the coroner, and possibly the jurors.

[Jon Guy]

Thanks for clarifying things, Neil. I was hoping you would pop in as I was starting to talk bollocks.

In Long`s defence, he did recall correctly what he had recorded in his notebook, and if the copy of the GSG in the Home Office files is anything to go by it is not clear how Juwes was spelt.

Is the Home Office copy below the version copied and handed in by Charles Warren ?

[DRoy]

"Any writing referred to, must be produced and shown to the adverse party, if he requires it; and such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine a witness thereupon."

Thanks Monty!

My interpretation of the above quote is 'if it is required' then it must be shown...not that it must be brought and shown regardless if anyone actually wants to see it.

Now whilst this hearing was not a trial, but an inquest, this passage clearly, in my opinion, resonated with Long. The fact he initially made an error in his transcription, and had to be corrected by the Inspector, may have effected Long to such a degree he tried to get away from the embarrassment (and potential attack on his reliability) by not producing the notebook at inquest, as once produced, the notebook could be scrutinised by the coroner, and possibly the jurors.

Is there a difference in what is expected in a trial compared to an inquest? The error was recognized before the inquest since the spelling of 'Jews' and the placement of the word 'not' was in dispute and being questioned. When Long was giving his testimony, he wouldn't have spelt the word 'Jews' or 'Juwes' so how did they know there was a problem with the spelling? Because of the previous report handed in. His notebook only became relevant and 'required' when asked for it. Long wouldn't have known it was 'required' until asked for during the inquest.

It is my opinion it is an assumption Long was purposely trying to avoid producing his notebook when he apparently didn't need to produce it unless asked to.

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

What It Means

That doesn't mean he read from his notebook.

That's exactly what it means. A witness, when giving evidence, can only refer to his or her original notes. It's what's known as the best evidence rule. When Long read what he had written, he read from his original pocket book notes; he would not be allowed to read from anything else. This (and I'm as tired as you are of this point having to be repeatedly emphasised) is the reason why it is a basic error for a police officer not to have the relevant pocket book in his possession when giving evidence.

The best evidence rule is also the reason why the GSG should have been preserved. It would have been impractical to produce the original graffito, so a photographic record should have been made.

[Monty]

Hey Colin,

Is it mandatory to take your noteook into a hearing?

Or merely best practice?

I must confess, I took mine in, however I never refered to it.

And due to its location, it would have been difficult to photograph the writing.

Monty

[Bridewell]

My interpretation of the above quote is 'if it is required' then it must be shown...not that it must be brought and shown regardless if anyone actually wants to see it.

Monty's document refers to adverserial proceedings - essentially a trial. There are no adverse parties at an inquest as it's not an adversarial process. The wording of the GSG was disputed and it defies common sense to argue that officers would not be required to refer to their original notes in such circumstances.

[pinkmoon]

That's exactly what it means. A witness, when giving evidence, can only refer to his or her original notes. It's what's known as the best evidence rule. When Long read what he had written, he read from his original pocket book notes; he would not be allowed to read from anything else. This (and I'm as tired as you are of this point having to be repeatedly emphasised) is the reason why it is a basic error for a police officer not to have the relevant pocket book in his possession when giving evidence.

The best evidence rule is also the reason why the GSG should have been preserved. It would have been impractical to produce the original graffito, so a photographic record should have been made.

Hi bridewell,the fact the police didn't photograph the message makes you wonder if they really thought it was genuine unless they were just plain incompetent anyway I'm going I can hear a freemason conspiracy approaching.

[Monty]

I did state that Colin, as there is no guidance which covers evidence conntected to Coroners inquests that I could find, I therefore went for the code.

I merely laid that post and a possible reason why Long did not produce his notebook, not as an ascertained reason why.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Hey Colin,

Is it mandatory to take your note-book into a hearing?

Or merely best practice?

I must confess, I took mine in, however I never refered to it.

And due to its location, it would have been difficult to photograph the writing.

Monty

Hello, Neil,

If by mandatory you mean a legal requirement, I think not (although it would become mandatory once the coroner ordered its production) but best practise most definitely. The only note a witness can refer to is the original. If an officer anticipates the possibility of needing to refer to his notes, he ensures that he has them with him. In adversarial proceedings (as you pointed out) the other party has no right to see the officer's pocket book unless the officer has sought to make reference to it. The coroner, however, was not a party to proceedings and could reasonably have been expected to wish to have ready access to it. Given the fact that the only surviving records of the GSG were those noted contemporaneously by the police officers present, I can't see how Long could have failed to anticipate the possibility of its availability being required. He should have had it with him. Arguably, in the unusual circumstances of the erased GSG, it was, as supposedly the best surviving record of it, not just a note but an exhibit.

[Bridewell]

I did state that Colin, as there is no guidance which covers evidence conntected to Coroners inquests that I could find, I therefore went for the code.

I merely laid that post and a possible reason why Long did not produce his notebook, not as an ascertained reason why.

Monty

Apologies. I wasn't having a pop at you although, having re-read my original post, I can see how it was open to that interpretation.

[Monty]

Apologies. I wasn't having a pop at you although, having re-read my original post, I can see how it was open to that interpretation.

No, no, we are cool Colin, as ever.

I was just clarifying my post as I admit, it does come across as a statement of fact and not my personal opinion.

Despite producing a notebook or not, I agree, Long should hae had it available to him.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Monty's document refers to adverserial proceedings - essentially a trial. There are no adverse parties at an inquest as it's not an adversarial process.

Quite so.
Thankyou for making that observation, I was about to ask Monty if the code was not primarily for trials, it read that way to me.

Slightly off topic.
The none adversarial process is one important distinction between an Inquest and a Trial. Even though witness testimony at the Inquest requires to be sworn-to, the fact there is no cross-examination to test the witness, or test the story, means this level of testimony is not deemed as reliable as that given at a trial.
A point that needs to be remembered by those who choose to place considerable value in Inquest testimony.
Sworn it may be, reliable it is not.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

Even though witness testimony at the Inquest requires to be sworn-to, the fact there is no cross-examination to test the witness, or test the story, means this level of testimony is not deemed as reliable as that given at a trial.
A point that needs to be remembered by those who choose to place considerable value in Inquest testimony.
Sworn it may be, reliable it is not.

A point that well made.

[GUT]

One other point that I will make is that sometimes there actually is cross-examination at an inquest, normally though only when there is either a suspect or a family member of the deceased trying to either push for a particular verdict or [and probably the same thing] trying to protect a deceased person's reputation.

[Monty]

Quite so.
Thankyou for making that observation, I was about to ask Monty if the code was not primarily for trials, it read that way to me.

Slightly off topic.
The none adversarial process is one important distinction between an Inquest and a Trial. Even though witness testimony at the Inquest requires to be sworn-to, the fact there is no cross-examination to test the witness, or test the story, means this level of testimony is not deemed as reliable as that given at a trial.
A point that needs to be remembered by those who choose to place considerable value in Inquest testimony.
Sworn it may be, reliable it is not.

The Police Code is a constables bible, the book he refers to for guidance, and covers all aspects of his job.

Testimony is testimony, be that written, laid at inquest or court. There is no distinction between trial, hearing and inquest testimony, no reliable nor unreliable testimony, just testimony, and due to the swearing in process, must be taken as the truth, whole truth and so on.

Cross examination does exists, albeit in a neutral form, and usually provided by the coroner or juror. We saw this with Long.

Monty