Apron placement as intimidation?

[Fisherman]

Then again, much as I have him up my ass all the time, I have never grown quite comfortable with it.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;401805]

Wrong. Learn this, Fisherman, and everyone else here:

1) A handwritten paper from an inquest is a primary source. A transcription from such a source is not a secondary source but a transcribed primary source which can be compared to the handwritten source.

2) An article is edited. It is composed using handwritten primary sources for what journalists thought and wrote. Its position as primary or secondary can therefore be extermely difficult to determine.

3) Both primary sources in handwriting or transcription and edited material can be narrative sources. But the narrative in edited material is less reliable than the narrative in non edited material.

4) There is a source hierarchy. A clerk at an inquest has no interest in the process but journalists from various newspapers may have specific interests in the issues presented. Therefore the source produced by the clerk is more reliable.

Do not again give us the very ignorant an uneducated idea that newspaper articles per definition are "correct primary sources".

Pierre

Which is as usual totally wrong.

[Joshua Rogan]

A clerk at an inquest has no interest in the process

This one certainly had no interest....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/drunk-court-reporter-repeatedly-typed-i-hate-my-job-i-hate-my-job-i-hate-my-job-9237652.html

[Fisherman]

This one certainly had no interest....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...b-9237652.html

[GUT]

Wrong. Learn this, Fisherman, and everyone else here:

1) A handwritten paper from an inquest is a primary source. A transcription from such a source is not a secondary source but a transcribed primary source which can be compared to the handwritten source.

2) An article is edited. It is composed using handwritten primary sources for what journalists thought and wrote. Its position as primary or secondary can therefore be extermely difficult to determine.

3) Both primary sources in handwriting or transcription and edited material can be narrative sources. But the narrative in edited material is less reliable than the narrative in non edited material.

4) There is a source hierarchy. A clerk at an inquest has no interest in the process but journalists from various newspapers may have specific interests in the issues presented. Therefore the source produced by the clerk is more reliable.

Do not again give us the very ignorant an uneducated idea that newspaper articles per definition are "correct primary sources".

Pierre

1. Is sort of right but both are primary sources

2. Both are primary sources

3. Is again wrong, that doesn't automatically make one less reliable, it may be more reliable if it is composed by comparing multiple handwritten notes

4. Either may contain bias and/or errors.

Once again the great historian shows a total lack of knowledge as to what constitutes a primary source.

[Michael W Richards]

This is an inane thread, but none the less.....the reports say the apron piece was found ON Kates body, it doesn't say she was wearing it, nor that it was bunched up in her clothing that had been cut and pushed up. Maybe he cut and tore the apron off her for what he needed it for, and discarded the rest by or on her body.

[Wickerman]

...
As for your last question it works both ways, we had no recording devices, the court reporter was just as likely to make an error in hearing and recording testimony as the newspaper reporters, and that is the reason why a good researcher compares all the primary sources of an inquest in this case, in an attempt to get a fuller view of what was actually said.

Steve

And, for what it's worth, if you don't mind I'd like to point out that the court recorder wrote in long-hand, so the official record only provides the gist of the exchange. We have no questions, only replies, and the replies are often copied down in brief, rarely verbatim. The recorder will merely summarize the witness testimony as opposed to copy word for word, which he clearly has not the time to do.

The press used short-hand which permitted them to capture both questions and answers, and in most cases the replies by the witness were more complete and in many cases verbatim.

It is demonstrably foolish to limit our knowledge by only using the court records. While press coverage varied, and also carried minor errors, the intelligent researcher compiles all the press versions and compares the individual testimonies with each source, and with the original court record.

The intent is, and should always be, to gain a deeper and broader understanding of all the exchanges at the inquest. Not...look for a narrow interpretation which tends to suit a preferred theory, while dismissing contradictory testimony found in the press as, untrustworthy.

With respect to covering crime in the press, the inquest coverage is among thee most reliable of sources at our disposal.

[jerryd]

This is an inane thread, but none the less.....the reports say the apron piece was found ON Kates body, it doesn't say she was wearing it, nor that it was bunched up in her clothing that had been cut and pushed up. Maybe he cut and tore the apron off her for what he needed it for, and discarded the rest by or on her body.

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Michael,

Dr Brown says, still attached by strings to the body. Is that not wearing it?

[Michael W Richards]

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Michael,

Dr Brown says, still attached by strings to the body. Is that not wearing it?

Hey Jerry,

ATTACHED BY STRINGS.....does that sound the same as "tied to her waist", "tied round her neck"? Im being rhetorical of course, but to my ear "attached by strings" doesn't mean that it was still being worn as a garment, even if fragmented.

If the apron was tied round her neck or waist when the killer started the garment cutting, she may well have ended up with a piece of the apron still attached to her body by the string, but not on her body necessarily. Im thinking that this apron was attached, like many of the period, by a fixed string loop around the neck and a piece of fabric or string on both sides of the waist, which would be tied behind the back, or if long enough, wrapped around to tie at the front. When she was lain on her back slicing up through the garments would be trouble enough, dealing with something that was tied at her waist or neck might just require slicing one string to make it loose enough to push up, or move aside.

[jerryd]

Hey Jerry,

ATTACHED BY STRINGS.....does that sound the same as "tied to her waist", "tied round her neck"? Im being rhetorical of course, but to my ear "attached by strings" doesn't mean that it was still being worn as a garment, even if fragmented.

If the apron was tied round her neck or waist when the killer started the garment cutting, she may well have ended up with a piece of the apron still attached to her body by the string, but not on her body necessarily. Im thinking that this apron was attached, like many of the period, by a fixed string loop around the neck and a piece of fabric or string on both sides of the waist, which would be tied behind the back, or if long enough, wrapped around to tie at the front. When she was lain on her back slicing up through the garments would be trouble enough, dealing with something that was tied at her waist or neck might just require slicing one string to make it loose enough to push up, or move aside.

Good points Michael, but Dr Brown said attached by strings to the body. That to me indicates it was being worn. Maybe I am hearing it wrong myself?

[Trevor Marriott]

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Michael,

Dr Brown says, still attached by strings to the body. Is that not wearing it?

But as you know there is other evidence to show this statement maybe wrong.

Dr Browns official inquest testimony
“My attention was called to the apron, it was the corner of the apron with the string attached”

If she was wearing an apron tied around her waist as you infer by the above statement. Why was it not listed as clothing she was wearing? Because you must agree that had she been wearing an apron and it was still tied it would have to have been removed before the other clothing could be taken off and listed as clothes she was wearing.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown,
“The clothes were carefully taken off the body, as described by Inspector Collard.”

This shows no mistakes nothing missed !

On another note
The mortuary piece was spotted with blood, and was listed amongst her possessions. Also listed in her possessions were 12 pieces of white rags also slightly bloodstained. That might be a pointer to show that the apron piece and the white rags were in fact together amongst her bag of possessions.

Finally the mortuary piece was described as one piece of old white apron. If she had been wearing it, might we have expected it it have been described as one old white apron with piece missing?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

If she was wearing an apron tied around her waist as you infer by the above statement.

I didn't infer it was tied around her waist, I believe it to be tied around her neck, as in bib. The lower portion of the apron, in my opinion, was found in GS.

[Trevor Marriott]

I didn't infer it was tied around her waist, I believe it to be tied around her neck, as in bib.

A bib type apron still has to be tied around the waist

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

A bib type apron still has to be tied around the waist

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But when the lower portion of the bib apron (where the strings would be) has been cut off and taken away, how can it be attached to the body?

[Trevor Marriott]

And, for what it's worth, if you don't mind I'd like to point out that the court recorder wrote in long-hand, so the official record only provides the gist of the exchange. We have no questions, only replies, and the replies are often copied down in brief, rarely verbatim. The recorder will merely summarize the witness testimony as opposed to copy word for word, which he clearly has not the time to do.

The press used short-hand which permitted them to capture both questions and answers, and in most cases the replies by the witness were more complete and in many cases verbatim.

It is demonstrably foolish to limit our knowledge by only using the court records. While press coverage varied, and also carried minor errors, the intelligent researcher compiles all the press versions and compares the individual testimonies with each source, and with the original court record.

The intent is, and should always be, to gain a deeper and broader understanding of all the exchanges at the inquest. Not...look for a narrow interpretation which tends to suit a preferred theory, while dismissing contradictory testimony found in the press as, untrustworthy.

With respect to covering crime in the press, the inquest coverage is among thee most reliable of sources at our disposal.

Are you not forgetting that the official depositions made by the witnesses at the inquest were signed by them afterwards. If they could not read then they would have been read over to them before they signed or made there mark.

So I think that process alone would rule out errors does it not? So any contentious issues, which have arisen between the official testimony and the press reports, might suggest that it was the press that got it wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk