Kate's Apron

[DJA]

Kattrup

That leaves Kattrup ...... seconded by ......

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

In the case of the Eddowes inquest we have signed depositions taken down at the time the evidence was given so they have to be regarded as accurate. Then we have newspaper reports which gives conflicting evidence, which is to be believed, you cant pick and choose to suit.

There is no judging by a historian to be made in this case. The newspaper reports are secondary sources which you and others keep quoting to prop up the old theory and in most cases the newspapers quoted could not have had reporters at the inquest to take down verbatim, they relied on buying stories from other newspapers, in reality there could have been only one pressman present who prepared an article which then got sent out across the country and who knows how that may have been altered or added to and then published. You have t stop believing that all you read is accurate as written because it clearly isnt

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

[DJA]

Trev's version

Hancock's Half Hour Twelve Angry Men S5 Ep4 - video Dailymotion

[harry]

Ok Jeff you are having fun.Good.Now I will be away for easter so I'll leave you and Jon three items to answer.Or anyone else for that matter.You may not think it relevant,but it is questions of law,and Jon seems to believe thats important.
1. Three accused persons plead guilty to a crime.They appear in a magistrates court and though pleading guilty,after a summary of the offence is given by the prosecution,the magistrate thinks for a moment,beckons the accused representative,has a few words,and the representative then changes the plea to not guilty.The Magistrate accepts this,the prosecution asks for a recess then comes back into court and declares they will offer no evidence.The accused are set free.Why?
2 A seaman is searched by Customs officers ,found to be in possession of pornographic photos,and charged with smuggling.He pleads not guilty and is aquited.Why?
Note,smuggling is a legitimite offence.
3 Possession of pornographic material,by an act of parliament,is a chargeable offence under the Customs act,and can result in fines or imprisonment.Yet seamen found in possession of such material are not charged.Why?
No trick questions. Each case is real.The first two were tried in the Port Adelaide ,South Australian Magistrate Court.The third is a representation of use of powers.
Happy Easter.Have fun.Do not let the fact that the offences occured in Australia distract you.It could just as well have happened in UK.Why?

[JeffHamm]

In the case of the Eddowes inquest we have signed depositions taken down at the time the evidence was given so they have to be regarded as accurate. Then we have newspaper reports which gives conflicting evidence, which is to be believed, you cant pick and choose to suit.

There is no judging by a historian to be made in this case. The newspaper reports are secondary sources which you and others keep quoting to prop up the old theory and in most cases the newspapers quoted could not have had reporters at the inquest to take down verbatim, they relied on buying stories from other newspapers, in reality there could have been only one pressman present who prepared an article which then got sent out across the country and who knows how that may have been altered or added to and then published. You have t stop believing that all you read is accurate as written because it clearly isnt


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

None of it is 100% accurate. It was written down by hand, the court transcripts even done in long hand, making them highly error prone. Transcribing speech to written text, even when it is audio recorded so the transcriber can go back and get what they missed, is notorious for how difficult it is to do. The benefit of combining the transcript newspaper reports with the court records is that between the two one can spot the errors and, through analysis, work out what was meant.

Or, we use your rule, and exclude all of the evidence because the court transcripts are, by your definition, unsafe to totally rely upon, and yet that is exactly what you do. (oh, except when they don't suit your case, then they're unreliable too, and you consult ... what exactly?)

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

None of it is 100% accurate. It was written down by hand, the court transcripts even done in long hand, making them highly error prone. Transcribing speech to written text, even when it is audio recorded so the transcriber can go back and get what they missed, is notorious for how difficult it is to do. The benefit of combining the transcript newspaper reports with the court records is that between the two one can spot the errors and, through analysis, work out what was meant.

Or, we use your rule, and exclude all of the evidence because the court transcripts are, by your definition, unsafe to totally rely upon, and yet that is exactly what you do. (oh, except when they don't suit your case, then they're unreliable too, and you consult ... what exactly?)

- Jeff

The depositions are taken down and the witness is then asked to read it before signing or, it is read back to them as being correct that how it works so there should be no room for errors like you suggest.

You are twisting things around yet again the errors and flaws that I have highlighted are in relation to the testimony itself I am not contesting what was said or how it was recorded it is you that has raised that issue.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Ok Jeff you are having fun.Good.Now I will be away for easter so I'll leave you and Jon three items to answer.Or anyone else for that matter.You may not think it relevant,but it is questions of law,and Jon seems to believe thats important.
1. Three accused persons plead guilty to a crime.They appear in a magistrates court and though pleading guilty,after a summary of the offence is given by the prosecution,the magistrate thinks for a moment,beckons the accused representative,has a few words,and the representative then changes the plea to not guilty.The Magistrate accepts this,the prosecution asks for a recess then comes back into court and declares they will offer no evidence.The accused are set free.Why?
2 A seaman is searched by Customs officers ,found to be in possession of pornographic photos,and charged with smuggling.He pleads not guilty and is aquited.Why?
Note,smuggling is a legitimite offence.
3 Possession of pornographic material,by an act of parliament,is a chargeable offence under the Customs act,and can result in fines or imprisonment.Yet seamen found in possession of such material are not charged.Why?
No trick questions. Each case is real.The first two were tried in the Port Adelaide ,South Australian Magistrate Court.The third is a representation of use of powers.
Happy Easter.Have fun.Do not let the fact that the offences occured in Australia distract you.It could just as well have happened in UK.Why?

Hi harry,

Ah, sorry that post was badly phrased on my part. I was thinking the light hearted nomination of me as "moderator" as being "moderator for the whole thread" not "moderator for your argument with Wickerman", but in hindsight, that wouldn't be apparent to anyone reading it. But what I meant was good fun contributing to the thread topic, not in the disagreement between you and Wickerman. As I say, looking back I can see how I failed to make that clear and so I apologize for that.

As for your above, I've no idea about any of them. But as they are not on topic, if this is something you think really needs to be discussed, then maybe start a new thread for them. This isn't the right place.

So, let's get back to the topic of the thread, unless everyone's more or less said their piece, in which case I suppose it's time to wrap this one up as "failed to reach consensus" - but we probably knew that would be the case right from the start. Still, we got there in only 40 pages, so that's not too bad. I've seen longer.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The depositions are taken down and the witness is then asked to read it before signing or, it is read back to them as being correct that how it works so there should be no room for errors like you suggest.

You are twisting things around yet again the errors and flaws that I have highlighted are in relation to the testimony itself I am not contesting what was said or how it was recorded it is you that has raised that issue.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

There will be errors, no doubt about it. No one would remember their exact wording, either. The records are as unsafe as any other transcript, and probably more so given they were written long hand. Press reporters would use short hand, which allows them to keep pace with the flow of the conversation (which is why they are able to record the questions as well, by the way). There is doubt about the court records being 100% accurate (I'm just restating the criterion you defined must be met otherwise something is unsafe) so they're unsafe and cannot be completely relied upon, but you are doing just that. Signing something that is unsafe doesn't magic the errors away, particularly as they have to compare it to memory (you do remember how relying on memory is unsafe? And you recognize that no matter which answer you give to that yes/no question will just support me here. And so, trying to remember word for word for exact word over a long testimony, well please, nobody could do that, hugely unsafe).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

There will be errors, no doubt about it. No one would remember their exact wording, either. The records are as unsafe as any other transcript, and probably more so given they were written long hand. Press reporters would use short hand, which allows them to keep pace with the flow of the conversation (which is why they are able to record the questions as well, by the way). There is doubt about the court records being 100% accurate (I'm just restating the criterion you defined must be met otherwise something is unsafe) so they're unsafe and cannot be completely relied upon, but you are doing just that. Signing something that is unsafe doesn't magic the errors away, particularly as they have to compare it to memory (you do remember how relying on memory is unsafe? And you recognize that no matter which answer you give to that yes/no question will just support me here. And so, trying to remember word for word for exact word over a long testimony, well please, nobody could do that, hugely unsafe).

- Jeff

There has to be some credibility to the testimony given as recorded you cannot just ignore by saying it may not be accurate because in any form it is more accurate than secondary newspaper sources.

Do we see newspaper reports being used in murder cases or coroners inquest today? no we don't so that must say something about how credible newspaper reports are and were back then.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

There has to be some credibility to the testimony given as recorded you cannot just ignore by saying it may not be accurate because in any form it is more accurate than secondary newspaper sources.

Do we see newspaper reports being used in murder cases or coroners inquest today? no we don't so that must say something about how credible newspaper reports are and were back then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

You yourself said that if something is not 100% accurate it is unsafe and not to be totally relied upon. The court records, because they are hand written transcripts of spoken words, will not be 100% accurate and therefore, by your requirment are unsafe and not to be totally relied upon. The signing means nothing because the comparison is based upon memory, and that would have to be a memory for the exact words one used when giving testimony, which you know would be impossible. You yourself have argued vehemently that evidence based upon memory and recollection is unsafe and not to be relied upon.

By the rules and criterions that you yourself have defined, and as I have pointed out before, makes absolutely everything we have from 1888 unsafe, and not to be relied upon.

The newspapers also publish transcripts of the inquests, which I believe it is the Times that did that, those would be primary sources. It's the papers that publish paraphrasing, or summaries of the inquest, that would be secondary sources. The police filed in the official police files copies of the coverage in the Times. Why do you think they did that? Just because they liked to see their names in the paper? Or maybe because they knew it provided them with a second transcript, including the context of the questions, that gave them better and more complete information than the long hand, questions omitted, inquest version?

And of course it wouldn't be done today. We have advanced in technology since 1888. It was because of the errors in transcription that could not be prevented when hand writing was used that courts switched to typists (faster and easier to read) and eventually to audio recording for later transcription. Because of the errors. Back in 1888, having a second source for a transcript was all they had to find the errors, Because they are there making the court documents, by your definition, unsafe - and yet you rely solely upon them.

You are stuck upon the horns of the dilemma, either you accept your criterions for calling things unsafe is unreasonable and flawed and must accept that using the newspaper transcripts to help sift through the errors is required, or you accept your rules and definitions are sound and so your whole case is unsafe because it solely relies upon unsafe sources. Take your pick. They're your rules, and your arguments, if you don't agree with that you are disagreeing with yourself.

But, we're not discussing the apron anymore, and I think that topic has run its course. So with that, I rest my case.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

There should be a very clear difference between something that is provably ‘unsafe’ and something that cannot be taken to have been 100% certain.

The latter applies to pretty much everything in the case and as we all know, without needing to be constantly reminded, that witness can lie and they can be mistaken so we are required to assess them. We assess to see how safe or unsafe their evidence is. If reasonable doubts can be shown then yes we have to consider them as unsafe. Simply stating that they ‘might’ have lied or that they ‘might’ have been mistaken is simply not enough to render them close to worthless. Trevor appears to have a default and very black and white view on this which, if taken forward, would have us dismissing every witness in the case.

Take Hutt and Robinson as examples. Anyone who has watched the brilliant (IMO) series House will know that his mantra is “Everybody Lies.” This is true of course but whilst we have to keep it in mind we can’t assume it to be true on individual issues without evidence of it. So while we accept that witnesses can lie and can be mistaken do we have any positive evidence of this in the case of these to police officers? I can’t see any. They both saw Eddowes at close hand and over a period of time. The item in question would have stood out like a white flag. They were both in a job were they were expected to ‘observe’ and they were both of good character as far as we know. So there’s nothing to add doubt. Simply saying “how could they have remembered that she was wearing an apron” isn’t approaching enough to doubt them I’m afraid. If they had made some observation that Sherlock Holmes would have missed then there would be a point to make but there isn’t. Likewise it’s difficult to suggest or sustain an accusation of dishonesty.

And so we have no evidence that their testimony was anything other than correct or honest. That doesn’t make them 100% of course but it doesn’t justify the term ‘unsafe’ because that implies far too much.

A very simple equivalent is if someone said to me “Is Trevor Marriott reliable on the subject of x?”

And I said “no, everything he says is unsafe because people make mistakes and people lie.”

Would anyone find my response reasonable? Of course not, they would ask for evidence of Trevor being mistaken or of him being in the habit of making mistakes. Or evidence of him lying or of him being in the habit of lying.”

And so my response calling Trevor “unsafe” would be ......unsafe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course if someone had a suspect and they claimed that he was definitely the ripper then that would certainly be unsafe.

[Wickerman]

In the case of the Eddowes inquest we have signed depositions taken down at the time the evidence was given so they have to be regarded as accurate.

That is an extremely naive argument, these witnesses are in a court of law and told to "sign here", so they do. Not all of them can even read, Eliza Gold made her mark with an 'X', so don't pretend these witnesses are analyzing what they said with what was written. Eliza Gold had no idea what was written down.

Then we have newspaper reports which gives conflicting evidence, which is to be believed, you cant pick and choose to suit.

They also give more detailed evidence than the court record provides, but we have had this exchange before and it appears what you call 'conflicting' is not always the case. I recall your particularly narrow interpretation of what blood spots, smears & stains was being very subjective.

There is no judging by a historian to be made in this case. The newspaper reports are secondary sources ......

Newspapers are NOT secondary sources, the articles they publish can be either secondary or primary - the newspaper is a neutral media - please try to get your head around it.
A newspaper, a radio, the TV & now the internet is a media platform, it is neither primary nor secondary. It is the stories they provide that are judged accordingly.

...... and in most cases the newspapers quoted could not have had reporters at the inquest to take down verbatim, they relied on buying stories from other newspapers, in reality there could have been only one pressman present who prepared an article which then got sent out across the country and who knows how that may have been altered or added to and then published. You have t stop believing that all you read is accurate as written because it clearly isnt

I know precisely how the process worked, and I totally agree that only a handful of reporters could have been present at an inquest, but that is beside the point.
Look, when you write a post on here, it may be copied a thousand times by people around the world and pasted on a variety of other websites. The article is STILL a primary source, no matter how many times it is copied. Only when someone rewords a line, a sentence, or re-writes the whole thing to paraphrase your words can it then be regarded a secondary.

[Wickerman]

...... The benefit of combining the transcript newspaper reports with the court records is that between the two one can spot the errors and, through analysis, work out what was meant.

Precisely so, this is the best way to deal with any variety of sources. It takes time & effort, but is the more professional approach.
Any inaccuracies can often be weeded out by collating the sources and comparing the details.

Or, we use your rule, and exclude all of the evidence because the court transcripts are, by your definition, unsafe to totally rely upon, and yet that is exactly what you do. (oh, except when they don't suit your case, then they're unreliable too, and you consult ... what exactly?)

Or, what has often been the case here, to use only those sources that support a particular theory, and reject the rest.