Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
View Post
When I was researching the movements of Joseph Isaacs I was fortunate to have a long detailed exchange with the head archivist at the London Met. Archive. I'll see if I have any old emails with his name, but it is clear to me you have no reliable knowledge of these court records that you put so much reliance on.
First, court records of a inquest are not complete records. The Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) was a full time operation that could afford a record keeper who knew short-hand, which enables them to capture most if not all that is said in the court room.
The local inquests were not so fortunate, as can be seen from the surviving records of both the Eddowes & Kelly inquests, they were captured in long-hand. However, pressmen in attendance at these inquests used short-hand to enable them to capture everything said. In fact at many of the leading papers the reporter couldn't be assigned to the court if they didn't know shorthand.
You dismiss the inherent value of what we read in the press coverage because of a general bias centered on the colloquial attitude "you can't trust newspapers". This is where you clearly need to do some indepth research, and by that I mean talk directly with someone who deals with court records.
Of course there are mistakes in press accounts, as there are mistakes in the court record, but we can get around all these errors by collating the various sources, not rejecting those which you have taken a personal distrust towards.
You're attitude towards the inquest coverage in the press holds no water with me as I know it comes from an ignorant source, one who has not taken the time to learn the subject at hand.
There are no 100% reliable written sources covering these inquest records, your bias only emphasizes your lack of knowledge, and therefore does not come across as a well balanced informative opinion.
Comment