Kelly inquest/Smithkey

[Pierre]

Because it was the law that this had to happen.

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

And where are the originals?

[David Orsam]

And when you say "always", how can you know they did not make an exception?

Because it was the law that this had to happen.

[Pierre]

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.

F**K.

Very sorry.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Because original depositions were always signed by the deponent.

And when you say "always", how can you know they did not make an exception?

[David Orsam]

And what do you mean by "they are not the original depositions"?

And how do you know that?

Because original depositions were always signed by the deponent.

[Pierre]

I have no idea what "very few errors" has to do with anything but they are not the original depositions.

And what do you mean by "they are not the original depositions"?

And how do you know that?

[David Orsam]

And as I said, very few errors. That is why I am discussing these right now.

I have no idea what "very few errors" has to do with anything but they are not the original depositions.

[David Orsam]

Just by the coroner and jurors who have signed after 2-3 pages at the start of the inquest

You are referring there to the Inquisition.

[Pierre]

Here is a page from Smithkey's book, it shows the tale end of Barnet's testimony, followed by that of Bowyer, and the first line of Ledger's testimony.



For what it's worth I thought it was convention that after each witness had given their testimony they were required to sign the bottom of their statement.
This is shown to be the case with the Eddowes court record, but as we can see neither Barnet nor Bowyer signed or made their mark after what they said was taken down.

Does that mean that this copy is not of the original made on Nov. 12th, or was there no such convention?
Or, has Smithkey clipped their signatures in order to place these statements in succession?

And as I said, very few errors. That is why I am discussing these right now.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;426463]

I'm not misunderstanding my dear boy. You said that, because there were "very few errors in it", it was or could be a transcription from an earlier original.

Yes, you are. I wrote "very few errors". And you wrote "a lot of errors".

I have not told you I "expect a lot of errors".

A more important factor is whether the documents are signed.

Just by the coroner and jurors who have signed after 2-3 pages at the start of the inquest but the witness statements are not signed.

[Wickerman]

Here is a page from Smithkey's book, it shows the tale end of Barnet's testimony, followed by that of Bowyer, and the first line of Ledger's testimony.



For what it's worth I thought it was convention that after each witness had given their testimony they were required to sign the bottom of their statement.
This is shown to be the case with the Eddowes court record, but as we can see neither Barnet nor Bowyer signed or made their mark after what they said was taken down.

Does that mean that this copy is not of the original made on Nov. 12th, or was there no such convention?
Or, has Smithkey clipped their signatures in order to place these statements in succession?

[David Orsam]

I'm not misunderstanding my dear boy. You said that, because there were "very few errors in it", it was or could be a transcription from an earlier original.

A more important factor is whether the documents are signed.

[Pierre]

Why would you expect a lot of errors in the originals?

You are misunderstanding this. It is not a question about "a lot of errors".

[David Orsam]

Why would you expect a lot of errors in the originals?