Inquest notes.

[Wickerman]

He did not give evidence.

Therefore no Inquest notes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE

Ah, so there's a "He" in there somewhere?, I hadn't noticed.

David was making general but very accurate observations in comparing court records with press coverage. This is what I was responding to, so I'm not following where you see mention of a certain person who didn't provide testimony.
Are we talking about different subjects?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

DAILY NEWS, 11th September 1888—

"Among the earliest uses to which the phonograph may advantageously be put is the recording of evidence in courts of justice. Nobody can be present in court for a quarter of an hour without being struck by the sad waste of everybody's time involved in the tedious process of taking down the evidence of witnesses word by word. To the lazy mind it is not very clear why shorthand, which is sufficient for almost all other purposes under the sun, is not to be trusted for this. At the latest Whitechapel inquest, for example, a great number of witnesses, policemen, jurymen, and others, are detained three times as long for the recording of the evidence by the deliberate longhand system of Mr. Baxter as is necessary for the mere hearing of testimony. Business is interrupted, justice is impeded, expense is incurred, and everybody grows tired of the slow procedure, simply because it is deemed necessary to dribble out what has to be said sentence by sentence, with long pauses between. When each witness box has, as a part of its furniture, an infallible recorder of words and tones, hesitations, and emphases, for reference wherever and whenever required, the summons to serve on a jury will be a far less serious matter, the steps of Justice will be quickened, and the cost of legal proceedings will be considerable reduced."

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

Well, it was your point, it apparently didn't come through totally clear..

He did not give evidence.

Therefore no Inquest notes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE

[Wickerman]

Troll free zone

Well, it was your point, it apparently didn't come through totally clear.
It might help if you spelled it out what might be a problem in the press being able to quote verbatim as opposed to general statements captured by the court.
The ball is in your court....

[DJA]

Care to clarify your point, in more than three words, if you don't mind.

Troll free zone

[Wickerman]

Nope.

Care to clarify your point, in more than three words, if you don't mind.

[Wickerman]

But you were - as per boring usual - taking a swipe at Hutchinson,...

More correctly, at the Hutchinson theories out there, and also shaking the curtains to see if Ben was peeping through...

[DJA]

Sounds like you are now making a different point.

Nope.

[Wickerman]

Like Wickerman, I don't see a problem either. Just think about the poor old coroner's clerk who is trying to record the witnesses' evidence in longhand. He'll be writing as quickly as possible but he will only ever be recording a summary of the material points of a witness's answer. Witnesses have a tendancy to twitter on about irrelevancies. The job of the coroner's clerk for the deposition (if not the coroner) would be to capture the material parts of the evidence in writing, not everything the witness has said. A court reporter on the other hand would be taking notes in shorthand and would thus be able to capture complete and verbatim question and answer exchanges. There's no mystery to it.

Hi David.

Although you were likely not aware, you touched on another erroneous self-serving argument offered by a few on here that it was the Coroner's record that was captured in shorthand, therefore the court record should not suffer from the pressure of having to sort wheat from the chaff.

While it is true the official proceedings at the Old Bailey were taking in shorthand, the local police & Coroners courts were not so capable, and as you correctly point out, these court records were in longhand, with the obvious result that the recorder had to be choosy about what he wrote.
While the press coverage, in shorthand, was able to be more complete. In that respect, and from our point of view, press coverage was more efficient.

[David Orsam]

Prolly need to be giving evidence to get that far.

Sounds like you are now making a different point.

[DJA]

Like Wickerman, I don't see a problem either. Just think about the poor old coroner's clerk who is trying to record the witnesses' evidence in longhand.

Prolly need to be giving evidence to get that far.

[Ben]

Just a general observation Christer, obviously with Hutchinson in mind. Sorry if you thought I was taking a swipe at Lechmere, I wasn't.

But you were - as per boring usual - taking a swipe at Hutchinson, despite the fact that none of the sensible points raised here have been remotely injurious to, or even remotely concerned, the idea of "contemporary witnesses being good suspects". If you must make futile insistences to the contrary, it might be better to explain your position on the relevant forums, rather than derailing an otherwise interesting discussion.

[David Orsam]

Hmm....see a possible problem there?

Like Wickerman, I don't see a problem either. Just think about the poor old coroner's clerk who is trying to record the witnesses' evidence in longhand. He'll be writing as quickly as possible but he will only ever be recording a summary of the material points of a witness's answer. Witnesses have a tendancy to twitter on about irrelevancies. The job of the coroner's clerk for the deposition (if not the coroner) would be to capture the material parts of the evidence in writing, not everything the witness has said. A court reporter on the other hand would be taking notes in shorthand and would thus be able to capture complete and verbatim question and answer exchanges. There's no mystery to it.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: It isn't only what was written in the files though Christer, detectives interviewed many suspects and they knew considerably more about their temporary suspects than what was written in the files. Yet no action was taken against anyone.

All perfectly true, of course. But I donīt think the sifting leading up to the interviews was made the way we would have made it today, if you take my meaning. I think the choice of persons of interest, if you will, was poorly made. And by that, I am not necessarily saying that the police did not do their job the way they were supposed to. It could well be a case of them having been supposed to do a kind of job that was not up to the standards we require today.
In such a case, it does not take very much to fly under a radar that is not interested in you in the first place.

Just a general observation Christer, obviously with Hutchinson in mind. Sorry if you thought I was taking a swipe at Lechmere, I wasn't.

Well, I thought (and hoped) as much. But it was nevertheless a wording that made me bounce...

[DJA]

Repeat.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Arrgh!