Kelly inquest/Smithkey

[David Orsam]

Ok, you lost me with this.
Witnesses did give testimony at the Old Bailey. Why would they not be expected to sign their statements?

The narrow answer is that the signing of depositions by witnesses at an inquest was a requirement of the Coroners Act of 1887 at S.4(2):

"It shall be the duty of the coroner in a case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case, or so much of such statement as is material, and any such deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner. "

That is essentially what leads me to believe that the unsigned depositions in the file at the LMA must be copies (they also don't look like other depositions I've seen). That said, I do note that one amendment on one of the depositions has been initialled "A.H" which were the initials of the deputy coroner, Alfred Hodgkinson. According to the Daily Telegraph of 14 November 1888: "It has been held that a coroner is bound to accept all evidence tendered, and to take down in writing the material parts. Dr. Macdonald interrogated the witnesses, but it was Mr. Hodgkinson who committed their testimony to writing." But the amendment could equally be a correction of a transcript prepared by him.

The wider answer to your question is that the trial was the very end of the process. So the depositions from the inquest and police court would be sent by the coroner and magistrate respectively to the court of assizes - in London the Central Criminal Court - so that they were available during the trial. Once the prisoner was found guilty or not guilty that was the end of matter so there was no need for the evidence at the trial to be preserved in written form. Once you had a criminal court of appeal, a transcript might have been needed and this could be professionally prepared (at a cost) from the shorthand notes.

But, in short, there were no depositions for any witnesses to sign at a trial because evidence was not recorded in longhand, as it was at an inquest or magistrate's hearing.

And just clarify the language. Statements would be prepared by a witness prior to a hearing. Depositions were taken during hearings.

[David Orsam]

Letter copying machines had been around for a century.
The police made handbills by the hundreds.

Well coroners weren't the police and that type of technology wouldn't have been practical for making copies of depositions in 1888.

[Pierre]

Let me try and answer all these questions.

Lets start with the Coroner's Act 1887 S.5(3) dealing with cases of murder or manslaughter:

"The Coroner shall deliver the inquisition, depositions and recognizances, with a certificate under his hand that the same has been taken before him, to the proper officer of the Court in which the trial is to be, before or at the opening of the Court."

So in this case, had the murderer of Kelly actually been caught, the original depositions would have been sent to the Old Bailey. As this would have been such an important murder trial, the papers of the Old Bailey would inevitably have been preserved and would be available today at the National Archives (like many others).

The Coroner would probably have retained copies for himself.

Now, there was obviously no arrest in this case but we should note the following in Jervis on Coroners:

"By a circular from the Home Office in September 1884, coroners were requested, in all cases in which a verdict of murder of manslaughter should be returned, to send a copy of the depositions to the Director of Public Prosecutions with or without any remarks which the coroner might think fit to offer."

Wynne Baxter certainly followed this circular very dutifully and had copies made of the Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Stride depositions which were sent to the DPP (as I've previously mentioned on this board). These would have been professionally printed and I've seen a non-Ripper example of one of Baxter's printed inquests.

Otherwise, I've seen lots (and that is more than a few) of original depositions in the Old Bailey files.

But to state the obvious, there were no photocopiers in those days so the cheapest way of making copies of anything was for a clerk to write them out by hand.

Evidence at the Old Bailey was taken down by shorthand writers (and by the judge in his notebook) - the process was different and did not involve depositions.

Hi David,

Why is the original inquisition together with a handwritten transcription of the original depositions do you think?

And why does it look like these two documents have been pieced together by someone?

Pierre

[GUT]

I seem to recall one paper reporting (I think Dr Phillips' evidence at the Chapman inquest) something like "the evidence was given carefully line by line so the coroner could write it all down".

A common admonition to this day, I well reeberone OLD Judge saying to a witness "Watch the Judicial pencil, I need to keep up" even though those proceedings were being recorded.

[GUT]

Thanks GUT.
So, oral evidence given on oath at an inquest is signed because......?

It's not. Not my knowledge anyway, but the statement you Might make before giving your oral evidence is.

[Wickerman]

Because it was oral evidence given on Oath, often never transcribed, but left in its original form.

Thanks GUT.
So, oral evidence given on oath at an inquest is signed because......?

[Joshua Rogan]

The Judge will also take notes of parts s/he considers important, none of this is ever signed.

I seem to recall one paper reporting (I think Dr Phillips' evidence at the Chapman inquest) something like "the evidence was given carefully line by line so the coroner could write it all down".

[GUT]

Ok, you lost me with this.
Witnesses did give testimony at the Old Bailey. Why would they not be expected to sign their statements?

Because it was oral evidence given on Oath, often never transcribed, but left in its original form.

[GUT]

Ok, so let me ask you this.
Are you aware of, or have you come across entire official copies made of any inquests before?
If so, for what reason was this done?

And, if I can sneak in a short off-topic question here.
In cases at criminal courts (like the Old Bailey), when testimony was recorded in short-hand, how would the testimony be signed by each witness?
Obviously they will not sign a document they cannot read, so would they come back at a later date to sign the official but re-written long-hand version of what they said?
Or, was a long-hand version taken down by someone else on the same day in addition to the short-hand version during the trial?

It not signed, even to this day. Sure some Courts may rely on Affidavits (which are signed) and Statements (which are signed) but the oral evidence is given on Oath or Affirmation and either recorded via electronic means or in shorthand (often on a machine sometimes by hand). The Judge will also take notes of parts s/he considers important, none of this is ever signed.

[Wickerman]

Now, there was obviously no arrest in this case but we should note the following in Jervis on Coroners:

"By a circular from the Home Office in September 1884, coroners were requested, in all cases in which a verdict of murder of manslaughter should be returned, to send a copy of the depositions to the Director of Public Prosecutions with or without any remarks which the coroner might think fit to offer."

So that solves the question of a coroner making copies.

But to state the obvious, there were no photocopiers in those days so the cheapest way of making copies of anything was for a clerk to write them out by hand.

Letter copying machines had been around for a century.
The police made handbills by the hundreds.

Evidence at the Old Bailey was taken down by shorthand writers (and by the judge in his notebook) - the process was different and did not involve depositions.

Ok, you lost me with this.
Witnesses did give testimony at the Old Bailey. Why would they not be expected to sign their statements?

[David Orsam]

Let me try and answer all these questions.

Lets start with the Coroner's Act 1887 S.5(3) dealing with cases of murder or manslaughter:

"The Coroner shall deliver the inquisition, depositions and recognizances, with a certificate under his hand that the same has been taken before him, to the proper officer of the Court in which the trial is to be, before or at the opening of the Court."

So in this case, had the murderer of Kelly actually been caught, the original depositions would have been sent to the Old Bailey. As this would have been such an important murder trial, the papers of the Old Bailey would inevitably have been preserved and would be available today at the National Archives (like many others).

The Coroner would probably have retained copies for himself.

Now, there was obviously no arrest in this case but we should note the following in Jervis on Coroners:

"By a circular from the Home Office in September 1884, coroners were requested, in all cases in which a verdict of murder of manslaughter should be returned, to send a copy of the depositions to the Director of Public Prosecutions with or without any remarks which the coroner might think fit to offer."

Wynne Baxter certainly followed this circular very dutifully and had copies made of the Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Stride depositions which were sent to the DPP (as I've previously mentioned on this board). These would have been professionally printed and I've seen a non-Ripper example of one of Baxter's printed inquests.

Otherwise, I've seen lots (and that is more than a few) of original depositions in the Old Bailey files.

But to state the obvious, there were no photocopiers in those days so the cheapest way of making copies of anything was for a clerk to write them out by hand.

Evidence at the Old Bailey was taken down by shorthand writers (and by the judge in his notebook) - the process was different and did not involve depositions.

[Pierre]

Pierre.

It isn't fair to expect anyone to know what happened to any of the mountains of official paperwork that has vanished in this case.

Dear Wickerman,

I do not expect David to know it. Just asking.

Yes, paperwork has vanished.

Good night.

Pierre

[Wickerman]

Pierre.

It isn't fair to expect anyone to know what happened to any of the mountains of official paperwork that has vanished in this case.

[Pierre]

And your hypothesis for the transcription presented to the public, if you have one?

And where are the originals?

I take it you have no answer.

[Wickerman]

Right, yes, this is a copy of a page from the copy depositions held at the London Metropolitan Archives as part of the Coroner's Papers for the North Eastern District and as transcribed in the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook. They are not, however, the original signed depositions but a handwritten (but official) transcript.

Ok, so let me ask you this.
Are you aware of, or have you come across entire official copies made of any inquests before?
If so, for what reason was this done?

And, if I can sneak in a short off-topic question here.
In cases at criminal courts (like the Old Bailey), when testimony was recorded in short-hand, how would the testimony be signed by each witness?
Obviously they will not sign a document they cannot read, so would they come back at a later date to sign the official but re-written long-hand version of what they said?
Or, was a long-hand version taken down by someone else on the same day in addition to the short-hand version during the trial?