Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,
........ So we can see, I hope, the problems that would be associated with any single transcription of spoken words, over a much longer period of time. And simply stamping that version with officialdom, and getting someone to sign it when they cannot hope to remember the exact words they said, is not going to make those errors go away.

- Jeff

Absolutely, take for instance the testimony of Dr. F. G. Brown, page after page of testimony, and under Trevor's rules by signing his name Dr Brown is certifying every word he said & every word that was said to him.
Trevor must realize that his, 'when it is signed, it is certified true' point of view is totally impractical to the point of being mostly impossible.

[DJA]

Interestingly, we have an example of Abberline breaking the golden rule in taking down the statement of Thomas Bowyer in the 3rd person, a no-no, but afterwards the rest of the Millers Court statements he takes down in the 1st person, as he should have.
I guess he was flustered for a moment...

Abberline was on good terms with Bowyer's boss who probably let Jack know that Barnett had moved out.

[JeffHamm]

Sorry, in relation to my post #613, where I say:

"Second hand hearsay is, I believe, inadmissible in courts because there are just too many ways for it to go wrong that it is deemed unreliable beyond repair to meet legal requirements (i.e. Did GUT really tell Trevor my favorite food is fish, and did GUT really claim those were my exact words, and did Trevor really remember the exact words GUT told him, and all the same also apply to GUT and the relationship to me in the first place)."

That second hand hearsay is inadmissible as evidence that I originally said that I like fish, because to do so means the hearsay evidence is being entered as "proof" the words are true (and all Trevor can testify to is that GUT told him that, not that what GUT told him was true, meaning that I had said it to GUT).

I'm not a lawyer, and the laws around admissibility of hearsay evidence (what I heard someone say evidence) are rather complicated, so I could be wrong on this. It might be admissible for Trevor to testify that GUT said "Jeff said he liked fish" but Trevor cannot in his testimony claim directly that I actually like fish, or even that I am known to have said that simply because GUT told him. Only GUT can testify directly that I said those words to him, but even he cannot assert those words are true.

It makes more sense if we're talking about a real crime, such as stealing a car. Let's say, in the pub, I told GUT I stole Trevor's car. GUT then goes and tells Trevor what I said. Trevor cannot testify in court that "Jeff stole my car because GUT told me Jeff admitted that to him". Also, Trevor could not even testify that "Jeff told GUT that he stole my car", because that is to assert that what GUT told him is true (that I really did confess to GUT). All Trevor can testify to is that "GUT told me that Jeff confessed to stealing my car". Then GUT could testify that "Yes, Jeff told me that, and I did tell Trevor", but neither of them can say "Jeff really did steal Trevor's car because he said he did", because that asserts the truth of the words - they can only testify to the words said directly to them but not to the truth of the the content of those words.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Absolutely, take for instance the testimony of Dr. F. G. Brown, page after page of testimony, and under Trevor's rules by signing his name Dr Brown is certifying every word he said & every word that was said to him.
Trevor must realize that his, 'when it is signed, it is certified true' point of view is totally impractical to the point of being mostly impossible.

Perfect example. That would be an impossible memory task, far far more difficult then to remember a general type of clothing was worn by the victim, such as an apron. An apron is a gist, they never go into great details, such as "and I remember this repair on it, with 78 stitches in black, and 42 in red", etc. which is starting to approach the idea of the level of minute detail that the transcript memory task would require.

Remembering the apron would be more akin to asking Dr. Brown, do you recall testifying to the injuries, and him saying yes.

- Jeff

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

Yes, again, First and Second Hand Hearsay is a different distinction than primary and secondary source of information (and the former distinction is used in legal situations, like courts, and the latter is used in research).

While they tend to be used in different areas, I'll try and outline how the distinctions are not interchangeable and combine them in the following illustrations.

First hand hearsay is when a person relates what another person has told them directly. (So I tell GUT "My favorite food is fish"; if GUT then testifies that I like fish because I told him that, that is first hand hearsay.

Second hard hearsay would be if GUT then told Trevor that I had said "My favorite food is fish", and Trevor then testifies that "Jeff likes fish" that would be second hand hearsay, because the information had to travel from me, through GUT, to Trevor.

If GUT testifies that I had said the exact words "My favorite food is fish", then that would be a primary source because it is effectively claiming to be an exact reproduction of what I said. If GUT had told Trevor my exact words were "My favorite food is fish", and Trevor then testifies using those exact same words, then again, that would be a primary source through second hand hearsay.

But if they just said "Jeff mentioned that he likes fish the most" but doesn't claim those are my exact words, then that becomes a secondary source through first hand hearsay, and so on.

Now, to avoid any confusion, just because something is a primary source doesn't mean we accept it as 100% accurate. One has to carefully consider aspects of how reliable the information is. Second hand hearsay is, I believe, inadmissible in courts because there are just too many ways for it to go wrong that it is deemed unreliable beyond repair to meet legal requirements (i.e. Did GUT really tell Trevor my favorite food is fish, and did GUT really claim those were my exact words, and did Trevor really remember the exact words GUT told him, and all the same also apply to GUT and the relationship to me in the first place).

I believe first hand hearsay is allowed; a witness can testify to what someone said directly to them, and they do not have to do so in a way that would be considered a primary source (they don't have to quote me, just pass on the gist of what I said, making it a secondary source of what I said, coming through first hand hearsay). However, they can only testify that I said something, it cannot be used as a fact of something. For example, if my defense was that "I did did not like fish", neither could testify that "Jeff likes fish, he told me it was his favorite" because there they are asserting the truth of the statement. They could testify that I said it, just not that it is true. (I could simply say "I was just saying it, I didn't mean it" - to prove I do like and prefer fish, they could testify that when we flew on a plane (remember those days) and had the choice of either the fish, beef, chicken, or vegetarian, I would always choose the fish. That would be evidence of my preferences, while simply saying something is not legally admissible).

With regards to the transcripts, they are all first hand hearsay. They are transcripts of the person's words, as recorded by either a reporter or the court recorder. It's effectively the reporter or the court recorder saying "this is what they said in my presence", and because they presenting a transcript, they are presenting "quotes", making them primary sources of the witness testimony.

And finally, because the court recorder is connected with the courts, that would be labeled an official document, while the newspapers, being separate from the courts, would be an unofficial document. Being official does not, however, mean it is more accurate, nor does being unofficial mean it is not a primary source.

- Jeff

Hearsay depends on the purpose of the evidence. So Trev could (generally) give evidence that I said Fish was your favourite food if the evidence was to establish that I had made such a claim. But not if to prove that it was your favourite food or even that you had said it was. IE I had said it was your favourite so someone gave it to you and you went into anaphylactic shock. But I could give evid that you said, in my hearing, that you loved fish if it was (as an example) evidence in defence of the person that gave you the fish. And there are (inmost jurisdictions anyway) exceptions that mean hearsay evidence can be used to establish the truth of what you said, notably dying declarations. But the law of evidence is way more complex than we can hope to encapsulate here it was why most law degrees include it as a stand alone subject often covering multiple semesters. But there is no such thing at law as primary and secondary evidence. There are very real questions at law as to admissibility and weight.

Transcripts and news reports of the trial are both historically primary sources, of course one is likely to be more reliable than the other. And an historical secondary source isn’t necessarily any less reliable than a primary source.

[GUT]

Sorry, in relation to my post #613, where I say:

"Second hand hearsay is, I believe, inadmissible in courts because there are just too many ways for it to go wrong that it is deemed unreliable beyond repair to meet legal requirements (i.e. Did GUT really tell Trevor my favorite food is fish, and did GUT really claim those were my exact words, and did Trevor really remember the exact words GUT told him, and all the same also apply to GUT and the relationship to me in the first place)."

That second hand hearsay is inadmissible as evidence that I originally said that I like fish, because to do so means the hearsay evidence is being entered as "proof" the words are true (and all Trevor can testify to is that GUT told him that, not that what GUT told him was true, meaning that I had said it to GUT).

I'm not a lawyer, and the laws around admissibility of hearsay evidence (what I heard someone say evidence) are rather complicated, so I could be wrong on this. It might be admissible for Trevor to testify that GUT said "Jeff said he liked fish" but Trevor cannot in his testimony claim directly that I actually like fish, or even that I am known to have said that simply because GUT told him. Only GUT can testify directly that I said those words to him, but even he cannot assert those words are true.

It makes more sense if we're talking about a real crime, such as stealing a car. Let's say, in the pub, I told GUT I stole Trevor's car. GUT then goes and tells Trevor what I said. Trevor cannot testify in court that "Jeff stole my car because GUT told me Jeff admitted that to him". Also, Trevor could not even testify that "Jeff told GUT that he stole my car", because that is to assert that what GUT told him is true (that I really did confess to GUT). All Trevor can testify to is that "GUT told me that Jeff confessed to stealing my car". Then GUT could testify that "Yes, Jeff told me that, and I did tell Trevor", but neither of them can say "Jeff really did steal Trevor's car because he said he did", because that asserts the truth of the words - they can only testify to the words said directly to them but not to the truth of the the content of those words.

- Jeff

Our posts crossed and yes that is pretty much right.

[Abby Normal]

what
does this all have to do with the ripper lol

[JeffHamm]

Hearsay depends on the purpose of the evidence. So Trev could (generally) give evidence that I said Fish was your favourite food if the evidence was to establish that I had made such a claim. But not if to prove that it was your favourite food or even that you had said it was. IE I had said it was your favourite so someone gave it to you and you went into anaphylactic shock. But I could give evid that you said, in my hearing, that you loved fish if it was (as an example) evidence in defence of the person that gave you the fish. And there are (inmost jurisdictions anyway) exceptions that mean hearsay evidence can be used to establish the truth of what you said, notably dying declarations. But the law of evidence is way more complex than we can hope to encapsulate here it was why most law degrees include it as a stand alone subject often covering multiple semesters. But there is no such thing at law as primary and secondary evidence. There are very real questions at law as to admissibility and weight.

Transcripts and news reports of the trial are both historically primary sources, of course one is likely to be more reliable than the other. And an historical secondary source isn’t necessarily any less reliable than a primary source.

Hi GUT,

Yes, you summarize it much better than I did, thank you. And I agree, the "primary/secondary" source classification is of importance with regards to research related endeavors, the courts and legal system have their own divisions based upon their needs. While I tried to give examples including all of the terms at once, in "the real world", it would depend upon the context which of those divisions people are going to use. Meaning, yes, I recognize that the courts don't view things as "primary source evidence", but I was combining two worlds to illustrate what it would look like. In the real world, a court would ignore the whole primary/secondary bit, while in research the whole first/second order hearsay only enters tangentially with regards to evaluating reliability, etc.

In the end, though, here we're doing research, so the terms primary and secondary sources tend to get used a lot and probably the most important thing to recognize is the difference between primary/secondary sources and official/nonofficial sources.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

what
does this all have to do with the ripper lol

You have to go ask Alice that question. We're all mad here.

- Jeff

[GUT]

what
does this all have to do with the ripper lol

Actually a lot, if you are going to argue, as some live to, about the use of sources and claim that some are better than others, but do so on totally flawed basis.

[JeffHamm]

...

Transcripts and news reports of the trial are both historically primary sources, of course one is likely to be more reliable than the other. And an historical secondary source isn’t necessarily any less reliable than a primary source.

Hi GUT,

True, primary and secondary source is not an indication of accuracy. For example, earlier in the thread I posted part of an official document from the inquest, which was a summary of what the witness PC Long testified to, and reproduced at the end of this. We note it reads in the 2nd instance as "Found a piece of an apron which corresponds with a portion found on the body" (phrased as "...the portion ..." in the first instance). Even transcribing to a neater hand shows how errors creep into transcripts.

Anyway, this would be an official document secondary source, because that is a summary of the relevant inquest testimony. And as we see, the official inquest document itself summarizes the testimony as the apron being found "on the body", which indicates it was being worn. There's wiggle room, of course, because one could argue that just means that particular item of her possessions was tossed on top of the body by JtR at some point. But that interpretation becomes very strained to the point of disbelief once one examines the details of the various primary sources, be they official or not.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Hi GUT,

True, primary and secondary source is not an indication of accuracy. For example, earlier in the thread I posted part of an official document from the inquest, which was a summary of what the witness PC Long testified to, and reproduced at the end of this. We note it reads in the 2nd instance as "Found a piece of an apron which corresponds with a portion found on the body" (phrased as "...the portion ..." in the first instance). Even transcribing to a neater hand shows how errors creep into transcripts.

Anyway, this would be an official document secondary source, because that is a summary of the relevant inquest testimony. And as we see, the official inquest document itself summarizes the testimony as the apron being found "on the body", which indicates it was being worn. There's wiggle room, of course, because one could argue that just means that particular item of her possessions was tossed on top of the body by JtR at some point. But that interpretation becomes very strained to the point of disbelief once one examines the details of the various primary sources, be they official or not.

- Jeff

Do you have any idea what GUT used to do for a living?

[JeffHamm]

Do you have any idea what GUT used to do for a living?

Hi DJA,

Not a clue, but given his knowledge above, I would hazard a guess there was a connection to the legal profession somehow.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Very much like the Cretan Paradox.
(If a Cretan says "all Cretans are liars", do you believe him?)

Big mobs of 'em here

[JeffHamm]

Actually a lot, if you are going to argue, as some live to, about the use of sources and claim that some are better than others, but do so on totally flawed basis.

True enough. Perhaps you've just proven we're not all mad here, making you the one sane anchor in this raging sea of false belief.

- Jeff