Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

if Trevor ever comes to realize that when he presents his alternative ideas he is agreeing to take up the challenge of being the prosecutor, and it becomes his responsibility to show that his explanation gets the prosecution closer to the ideal than whatever explanation he is offering an alternative to, then he may be able to accept that he's taken on a challenge that will always fail to grasp the ideal, but really, all he has to do is show he gets closer. Everyone, absolutely everyone, has ideas and explanations about this case that are wrong with regards to what actually unfolded in 1888. We will never see into the past with perfect clarity. What we hope and try to do, though, is see through the window of evidence that we have to get at least a pretty good sketch of the events even if it's not a full scale 3D movie of those events.

- Jeff

You are wrong I have not tried to take up the role of the prosecutor because the facts are documented for the prosecution, what I have done is to take up the role of the defense in highlighting the flaws in the prosecution case to show that the prosecution evidence is unsafe and it should not be relied upon, and to present alternatives to show why the prosecution case is unsafe.

In this particular case that exercise is perfect, because we have the signed depositions to work with which form the main part of the prosecution case, and all the spurious newspaper reports you and others keep quoting would be inadmissible. The only thing we cant do is cross examine the witnesses, but in my opinion there are enough inferences which can be drawn with regards to the witness testimony which is what a court of jury might be allowed to do to cause a major doubt.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I take that to be a touch of sarcasm

The Morning Post reported that the apron was produced in two pieces, not half an apron, or two-thirds, but an apron.

When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).

The Scotsman likewise published a similar description:

She was wearing an apron.
The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it.

Short of being there.....it seems to me, there were two pieces.

When are you going to realize that these newspaper reports are secondary hearsay evidence, and cannot and should not be relied upon. Yet you and others continually keep quoting from them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

You are wrong I have not tried to take up the role of the prosecutor because the facts are documented for the prosecution, what I have done is to take up the role of the defense in highlighting the flaws in the prosecution case to show that the prosecution evidence is unsafe and it should not be relied upon, and to present alternatives to show why the prosecution case is unsafe.

In this particular case that exercise is perfect, because we have the signed depositions to work with which form the main part of the prosecution case, and all the spurious newspaper reports you and others keep quoting would be inadmissible. The only thing we cant do is cross examine the witnesses, but in my opinion there are enough inferences which can be drawn with regards to the witness testimony which is what a court of jury might be allowed to do to cause a major doubt.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

You've deleted much of my original post where I point out that you don't have to present anything at all if you only aspire to the lower goal of the defense, to achieve doubt. Certainly, if I were a prosecuting lawyer (which I'm not of course), I wouldn't take any of the theories presented here to court. None of them could reach the goal of "beyond reasonable doubt" because our evidence set is so minimal.

The issue, though, is whether or not the court room is the right metaphor for examining a historical case like this. And, in my opinion, it isn't. Court room debates are non-interactive, neither side looks to learn from the other, both are just trying to trip the other up. The goal posts are different heights, and the objectives diametrically opposed, the prosecution must establish "beyond reasonable doubt" and the defense has the much lower bar of "just establish enough doubt that the prosecution fails to reach the higher bar". It is advasarial by design.

Also, here, we present ideas and so whoever is presenting a theory is the prosecutor. So when you say "the apron was not worn" you are taking up the challenge of saying you are going to prosecute that, and others become the defense and just have to establish doubt in your explanation. That's clearly been done. The roles reverse when someone, say me, represents the original police explanation, and again, doubt there must exist (certainly in a court room, based upon what we have to work with, it may be a jury would look at the poor chain of evidence and so forth, and consider all sorts of things enough to insert enough doubt, etc).

Finally, we also take on the role of the juries as we compare competing ideas. We're switching from being prosecutors, to defense, to jury and those roles are just incompatible. The courtroom approach doesn't work here, but it does make complete sense of your methods. You work very hard to have evidence excluded, for example, which is an important job by any half decent defense lawyer. You never concede a point, even one as obvious that if you claim two parts don't make a whole, but you won't concede there must have at some point in time been at least a third part. And, much of your alternative is based upon no evidence, because you approach it as the defense lawyer who doesn't have to prove their case, only show the prosecution hasn't shut that door.

And given you view these discussions this way, I get why you are so frustrated and think everyone is blinkered because nobody is accepting your argument from the point of view of a defense lawyer, where you just have reach the lower bar while you get to insist everyone else must reach the far higher bar.

And that is because, when you present your case, if we stick with a court room as our model, you are taking on the role of the prosecutor of that case, whether you want to or not.

Personally, I think that model is inappropriate for all of the reasons above. First, in a historic case like this, it's trivial for the defense to "win" because everyone (well, perhaps that is an overstatement) knows the evidence we have is not sufficient to do reach the high bar of "beyond reasonable doubt". Courts are also based upon an adversarial method of debate, with the bar set much much lower for the defense.

My personal view, which may or may not be shared by others, is that the far more productive, and appropriate model, is that of an inquiry, where the common goal is to work out the truth, not just compete for the jury votes regardless of whether our stories are true or not. That common "search for the truth" will still lead to debate, and still be heated, but it also means that all of us are motivated to change our views if our idea ends up being too deficient. It also means that all sources of evidence are to be considered, and that includes recognizing the different levels of reliability between them. But since we know none of the sources are evidence are 100% error free, all of it could be rejected in the court model, leaving us nothing to even talk about.

I do hope you'll consider what I'm saying, because as I've said a few times, I do believe your experience is to be highly valued. But much of that is being lost due to approaching discussions here with that court room approach. The prosecution and defense don't work together, but in opposition to each other, which is what's happening here on even the most trivial of points. It's not a court room, it's more like a group of investigators sharing different ideas and seeing which one fits the evidence best, and then suggesting what the next step should be. (Typically, that would be "go reinterview x,y, and z and get them to clarify what they meant here, etc, which we can't do). If we approach it with the idea we're all trying to reach a common goal (which the court model does not set up; it sets up apposing goals, with different heights for the bars) then eventually we should be able to see what the best explanation is for the evidence we have. We can never know if that explanation is indeed true for many reasons, but we can at least try and find it.

Anyway, it's been dawning on me that your approach is that of the court room. But here, whether you want to or not, if you're going to stick to that model then just remember every time you present your alternative, you are the prosecutor - you are putting the case forward, and the defense will win. The defense, in this court, will always win because their bar is still achievable, and the prosecutions is not - ever - by anyone or any theory, old, present, or that which is yet to be thought of.

If we approach it as a collaborative search for the most plausible explanation based upon the evidence we have, then the sharing of all sorts of ideas can be discussed and we can compare which idea accounts for the most of the evidence with as few plunges into the pool of speculation and conjecture.

Anyway, I have no idea if that appeals to you, but I hope you give it some thought.

- Jeff

[harry]

We are talking about 1888,Jon,not 1889,and naturally you only quote a part of the conversation,and leaves out the answer to your claim.which was not by me cause I do not post on that site.
Again, the fact that no one replies to a statement does not mean the statement lacks credibility,but that no one has an answer to descredit it.
I cannot remember the old days Jon, when only evidence was used,and I have been posting a long time.There has always been the,'What ifs,mayby's,couldby's,presumptions and speculations'.The real world is inundated with such talk,and who is to decide what is evidence.

[Wickerman]

We are talking about 1888,Jon,not 1889,...

Had you been paying attention in 2015 when Neil & Adam published the Police Code you would know that Neil had assured us all that those rules were in effect in 1888. If you want to challenge the Police Code go ahead, but don't accuse me of being wrong when the Police Code tells you the same thing.

.......and naturally you only quote a part of the conversation,and leaves out the answer to your claim.which was not by me cause I do not post on that site.

This is getting a little tiresome, you accuse me of "only quoting part of the conversation", - What conversation?
I quoted part of the code, if you want scanned pages I'll see if I can do that. Don't expect others to teach you what you can't be bothered to learn for yourself.

Finally, you are the one making some lame accusation that I am wrong about police not being allowed to interrogate a prisoner, yet you can't even remember when it was said, where it was said, who was involved, or what the conversation was about.
You need to back up your accusations or some might begin to see you as nothing more than a 'troll'.

I think you've realized you goofed, your accusation should really be about a witness giving a voluntary statement to an officer, and how limited that officer is to the types of questions he is allowed to ask.
This was an exchange I had with Ben, and others, many times over.

[harry]

I hav'nt goofed Jon,and there is nothing wrong with my memory.I have told you it was on the JTR forums.You were involved,I have also said that.What some might see me as doesn't worry me ,why bring those kind of statements forward.By the way,what is a troll?What is the limit Jon?Seems it is yourself who is making claims that lack explanation.

[Wickerman]

When are you going to realize that these newspaper reports are secondary hearsay evidence, and cannot and should not be relied upon. Yet you and others continually keep quoting from them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Secondary?
You have not spoken with any historians then. Newspapers are neither primary nor secondary, it is the content which is to be judged either primary or secondary, not the newspaper itself.
Witness testimony taken down verbatim at the inquest is a primary source when the witness relates personal experiences. Whether their account is recorded by the court recorder, or a journalist, the level is the same, it's primary.
If the court recorder, or the journalist, choose, due to either lack of time or of space, to reword what that witness has said, then both the court recorder & the journalist are secondary sources.
The matter of primary & secondary sources is a distinctly debatable one, there is no hard and fast rule, but you are once again missing the point.

It doesn't matter whether we obtain our information from a journalist or the court recorder, the historian will judge the content for accuracy regardless of the source. Assuming the court recorder is infallible shows how little you know about the process - no-one is infallible.

[Wickerman]

I hav'nt goofed Jon,and there is nothing wrong with my memory.I have told you it was on the JTR forums.You were involved,I have also said that.What some might see me as doesn't worry me ,why bring those kind of statements forward.By the way,what is a troll?What is the limit Jon?Seems it is yourself who is making claims that lack explanation.

Clearly there IS something wrong with your memory, as you can't provide any background to substantiate your accusation, yet you claim to have seen something.

You say I am wrong because someone said I am wrong, is that it, is that all you have?

The JTRForum is a big site, you need to do better than that.
Who was I talking with?, what was the discussion? - you are the one making accusations yet you fail to substantiate what you say.
I think it's because you can't, it's just another one of your baseless accusations.

I've already proven to you the circumstances where an officer is not permitted to question a prisoner, if the subject concern's you so much why have you not bought the book, or better still, why don't you come up with an official source to back up your argument?
(Whatever it is)

[harry]

As it is Something Trevor Marriot said,that you quote Jon,why address me.Stick to what I say.What point am I missing?What process are you on about?You accuse me of not explaining,you would be well advised to study your lack of explanation'

[Wickerman]

As it is Something Trevor Marriot said,that you quote Jon,why address me.Stick to what I say.What point am I missing?What process are you on about?You accuse me of not explaining,you would be well advised to study your lack of explanation'

Now, you're even reading the wrong post....

[harry]

I'll repeat,there IS nothing wrong with my memory Jon.I have given the source.It;s not going to go away.If it is all I have,it is enough.I do not have to do any better.It is not baseless,as I have given a source.You haven't proven anything to me.The subject of questioning seems to be something of your making,not mine,and why should I buy a book,when there are other sources.By the way,what book are you promoting?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Wickerman and harry,

I think we're getting off track. It's clear that Wickerman doesn't know what thread or conversation you're referring to on the other boards harry and presumably whatever you're referring to was long enough ago that you can't track it down, so there's no point dragging it out here, particularly it's an argument over something that itself is not the topic of the thread. I suggest you take it PM's if it's really something you want resolved, but there's no reason to air dirty laundry here. We've enough noise and conflict from the topic alone, thanks.

- Jeff

[DJA]

I nominate Jeff for moderator.
Seconded by ...... ?

[Kattrup]

I nominate Jeff for moderator.
Seconded by ...... ?

Kattrup

[JeffHamm]

I nominate Jeff for moderator.
Seconded by ...... ?

Moderators have to be impartial, and I'm having too much fun taking part.

- Jeff