Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    You need to stop being pedantic I see you are still struggling to find excuses not accept what is fact.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    And you certainly don’t struggle to find excuses Trevor ax you could write a book on them.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post

      I am a poet and do a lot of open mics on Zoom these days with fellow writers from around the world. Even when I read my own poems displaying them on screen using "Screen Share" I know I don't always read the identical words that I had written. So you can't tell me that even if the witness signs a statement they would know exactly what they testified to.
      Hey Chris, nice to see you over this side of the fence, a rare treat
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        They are asked to read it first

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Those who can, you mean.
        You don't have to pass a reading test to be a witness, or a juror for that matter.
        Last edited by Wickerman; 08-09-2021, 07:24 PM.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Hi Trevor,

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.
          In the sense that the evidence itself doesn't depend upon what one is doing with it, that's true. The evidence set is what it is. What we can do, however, is dependent upon things outside of the evidence set, such as what year it is.

          Given the time difference between the events and now, we no longer can re-interview, re-examine, or re-collect evidence. Many of the investigative tools of an active police investigation are impossible to perform. Those are not our tools.

          The goal of a police investigation is also to secure a conviction, in a court of law. But that is not our goal.

          What we now have to accept is that the evidence we have is it, as it is. Our goal is to make sense of what we have, and to interpret it as best we can, knowing full well that no interpretation can, or should, be viewed as 100% correct. We can't get to the specifics of the events, but to some extent we can narrow things down to categories of explanations.

          Her wearing of the apron is a category of explanation, as there are many specifics we cannot know (the exact detail of how it was cut, the exact dimensions of the apron, the style of the apron, and so forth). When we switch to the alternative category of explanations, the "not wearing an apron", the evidence we do have either directly contradicts that, or requires the speculation of details for which we have no evidence.

          Would it be enough for court? of course, not, in a court of law we would need those details. Would a defense like you're offering about not wearing an apron work? No, it would be easily demonstrated by a prosecutor that your explanation is so self-contradictory that it cannot be said to constitute reasonable doubt given the evidence we have. Now, if it were an active police investigation and you could go out and actually test your ideas, and in the process found some real evidence that could not be easily explained if she was wearing an apron, then fine, you would have a case. But you can't do that, so you do not have a case.

          Now I have a question for you.

          You say above the evidence "is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason", and since we're all working with the same evidence set (though you cull it quite severely), why is the evidence unsafe when someone like me interprets it, but apparently rock solid when you do?

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Questions Wick.

            At what point in the proceedings were witnesses handed statements to sign?

            If their statements had to be written into long hand does that mean they had to hang around waiting for it to be completed?

            Did the witnesses have to wait in a certain area to prevent them from just walking out before they’d signed?

            If a witness couldn’t read when and where would the statement have been read back to them? Surely not in the Inquest room?
            You have posed the same sort of questions that came to my mind years ago. Needless to say this is not the first time we have debated this signing issue.
            In the Kelly inquest none of the testimony was signed by the witness.
            So it was not a mandatory procedure, but then again Eddowes was a City inquest.

            I can't see the court being held up while a witness reads, or has their testimony read to them.
            It's quite possible that as they left the stand they were told to go to the Officer of the court who must have been given the court recorders account. The Officer deals with the signing, likely in an adjacent room, while the court carry's on uninhibited.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              You have posed the same sort of questions that came to my mind years ago. Needless to say this is not the first time we have debated this signing issue.
              In the Kelly inquest none of the testimony was signed by the witness.
              So it was not a mandatory procedure, but then again Eddowes was a City inquest.

              I can't see the court being held up while a witness reads, or has their testimony read to them.
              It's quite possible that as they left the stand they were told to go to the Officer of the court who must have been given the court recorders account. The Officer deals with the signing, likely in an adjacent room, while the court carry's on uninhibited.
              This is what I was thinking. I can’t see a Coroner halting proceedings while someone reads a statement. Especially a poor reader that needs help or someone that can’t read. The adjacent room suggestion makes sense.

              More questions Wick, but hey it’s my 10,000th post.

              There are the Inquest Reports which are filed in the London Records Office, right? So….

              Are these handwritten?
              Are they signed?
              Don’t they differ from the Inquest reports in The Sourcebook which are taken From The Times? Or the ones on here from The Telegraph?
              If they differ why weren’t the ones in the London Records used in the Sourcebook?

              Sorry to batter you with questions but as a non-researcher I’ve never had dealings with these kind of records.

              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                This is what I was thinking. I can’t see a Coroner halting proceedings while someone reads a statement. Especially a poor reader that needs help or someone that can’t read. The adjacent room suggestion makes sense.

                More questions Wick, but hey it’s my 10,000th post.
                Congratulations!

                There are the Inquest Reports which are filed in the London Records Office, right? So….

                Are these handwritten?
                Are they signed?
                Yes, the entire court record is handwritten except where they used preprinted forms, but the testimony is all handwritten.
                Each witness signed their testimony except Eliza Gold who placed a mark X, I guess she couldn't read or write.
                Don’t they differ from the Inquest reports in The Sourcebook which are taken From The Times? Or the ones on here from The Telegraph?
                You'll find Chapter 10 in the sourcebook The Eddowes Inquest, begins with the typewritten account transcribed I suppose by Stewart, of the original handwritten court record.
                Stewart then followed that by the press account from the Times. So you have two accounts of the Eddowes Inquest in the Sourcebook.

                Each press account is also different, as a rule the press version is more detailed, and of course the press included questions which do not exist in the Court Record.

                If they differ why weren’t the ones in the London Records used in the Sourcebook?
                They were, see above.
                Each newspaper account (Times, Telegraph, Star, Evening News, etc.) all differ in a variety of ways. In some we have first-person testimony, other gave third-person accounts. Some questions & replies are not verbatim but paraphrase.
                This is why it is necessary, in my opinion, to collate all the accounts to have a complete picture of the testimony.

                Sorry to batter you with questions but as a non-researcher I’ve never had dealings with these kind of records.
                Not a problem, I was the same with David (Orsam) a couple of years ago. There were details he knew about the court process that I didn't.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • I'll just give an example here, for anyone who has Stewarts Ultimate Sourcebook, take a look at Halse's testimony. His testimony ends with this line:

                  "By the Jury - It looked as if it had been recently written.

                  Which means, a question was posed by the Jury, to which Halse replied (concerning the graffiti) "It looked as if it had been recently written".

                  Whereas press accounts give more testimony omitted by the Court Recorder.
                  All this information is missed by those who think the Court Record is the only source worth paying attention to.


                  (Daily Telegraph) Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found. There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.
                  Mr. Crawford: With the exception of a few questions to Long, the Metropolitan constable, that is the whole of the evidence I have to offer at the present moment on the part of the City police. But if any point occurs to the coroner or the jury I shall be happy to endeavour to have it cleared up.
                  A Juror: It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the buildings, and yet made no inquiries in the buildings themselves. There was a clue up to that point, and then it was altogether lost.
                  Mr. Crawford: As to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make diligent search in every part of the tenements the moment the matter came to their knowledge. But unfortunately it did not come to their knowledge until two hours after. There was thus delay, and the man who discovered the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan police.
                  A Juror: It is the man belonging to the Metropolitan police that I am complaining of.



                  (Times) By a juryman. - He assumed that the writing was recent, because from the number of persons living in the tenement he believed it would have been rubbed out had it been there for any time. There were about three lines of writing, which was in a good schoolboy hand.
                  By another juryman. - The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall.
                  A juryman. - It seems to me strange that a police constable would have found this piece of apron, and then for no inquiries to have been made in the building. There is a clue up to that point, and then it is altogether lost.
                  Mr. Crawford. - I have evidence that the City Police did make a careful search in the tenement, but that was not until after the fact had come to their knowledge. I am afraid that that will not meet the point raised by you (to the juryman). There is the delay that took place. The man who found the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan Police.



                  (Daily News) A juror - How did you account for its being recent? - Because it seemed fresh, and if it had been long written it would have been rubbed by people passing. It was written on the black brick in good schoolboy's handwriting. The capitals would be under an inch high, and italics in proportion. The bricks are painted black up to about four feet high, like a dado, and above that are white.

                  Mr. Crawford - With the exception of a few questions to Long, that is the whole of the evidence I have to offer on the part of the police, but if there is any particular point the jury thinks can be cleared up, I shall be happy to answer.

                  A Juror - It appears strange that a policeman should find a piece of apron and then no further inquiry should be made. They had got a clue up to that point, and there it is lost utterly.

                  Mr. Crawford - You have heard what the constable said. I have witnesses to show that diligent search was made of every part of the premises in Goulston street.

                  The Juror - That is an answer to my question.

                  Mr. Crawford - Long, who found the apron, is one of the metropolitan police. He has gone to fetch his pocket book.

                  Proceedings were suspended until the return of the constable.


                  (Morning Advertiser) Mr. Crawford said that, excepting a few questions he had to put to the witness Long, who had gone away for his book, that was the whole of the evidence he proposed to call; but if there was any point which they would like cleared up he should be happy to render what assistance he could.

                  A juror - It seems surprising that a policeman should have found a piece of apron in the passage leading into a building, and that no further inquiry should have been made in the building itself. You get a clue up to that point, and then it is lost entirely.

                  Mr. Crawford - Long will be back; you can ask him. I may say with regard to a remark which fell from a juror with reference to the finding of the apron, that I have several members of the City Police here who made a careful search in every part of the tenement the moment the matter came to their knowledge.

                  The Juror - I think that is sufficient.

                  Mr. Crawford - Unfortunately, it did not come to their knowledge for two hours afterwards. I am afraid that will not answer the objection raised.

                  The Juror - I think it will.

                  Mr. Crawford - No, unfortunately there was a delay. The man who found this piece of apron is a member of the metropolitan police force, and he found it, I think he told us, at about twenty minutes to three.

                  The Juror - It is the man who found the piece of apron of whom I am complaining.

                  Mr. Crawford - He has gone to fetch his note book, but he will be here directly.


                  (Standard) Mr. Crawford said that, excepting a few questions he had to put to the witness Long, who had gone away for his book, that was the whole of the evidence he proposed to call; but if there was any point which theywould like cleared up he should be happy to render what assistance he could.

                  A juror - It seems surprising that a policeman should have found a piece of apron in the passage leading into a building, and that no further inquiry should have been made in the building itself. You get a clue up to that point, and then it is lost entirely.

                  Mr. Crawford - Long will be back; you can ask him. I may say with regard to a remark which fell from a juror with reference to the finding of the apron, that I have several members of the City Police here who made a careful search in every part of the tenement the moment the matter came to their knowledge.

                  The Juror - I think that is sufficient.

                  Mr. Crawford - Unfortunately, it did not come to their knowledge for two hours afterwards. I am afraid that will not answer the objection raised.

                  The Juror - I think it will.

                  Mr. Crawford - No, unfortunately there was a delay. The man who found this piece of apron is a member of the metropolitan police force, and he found it, I think he told us, at about twenty minutes to three.

                  The Juror - It is the man who found the piece of apron of whom I am complaining.

                  Mr. Crawford - He has gone to fetch his note book, but he will be here directly.

                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Those who can, you mean.
                    You don't have to pass a reading test to be a witness, or a juror for that matter.
                    Well I would suggest the main witnesses that we are discussing could both read and write unless you know different and why mention jurors they have nothing to do with this

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      I'll just give an example here, for anyone who has Stewarts Ultimate Sourcebook, take a look at Halse's testimony. His testimony ends with this line:

                      "By the Jury - It looked as if it had been recently written.

                      Which means, a question was posed by the Jury, to which Halse replied (concerning the graffiti) "It looked as if it had been recently written".

                      Whereas press accounts give more testimony omitted by the Court Recorder.
                      All this information is missed by those who think the Court Record is the only source worth paying attention to.


                      (Daily Telegraph) Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found. There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.
                      Mr. Crawford: With the exception of a few questions to Long, the Metropolitan constable, that is the whole of the evidence I have to offer at the present moment on the part of the City police. But if any point occurs to the coroner or the jury I shall be happy to endeavour to have it cleared up.
                      A Juror: It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the buildings, and yet made no inquiries in the buildings themselves. There was a clue up to that point, and then it was altogether lost.
                      Mr. Crawford: As to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make diligent search in every part of the tenements the moment the matter came to their knowledge. But unfortunately it did not come to their knowledge until two hours after. There was thus delay, and the man who discovered the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan police.
                      A Juror: It is the man belonging to the Metropolitan police that I am complaining of.



                      (Times) By a juryman. - He assumed that the writing was recent, because from the number of persons living in the tenement he believed it would have been rubbed out had it been there for any time. There were about three lines of writing, which was in a good schoolboy hand.
                      By another juryman. - The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall.
                      A juryman. - It seems to me strange that a police constable would have found this piece of apron, and then for no inquiries to have been made in the building. There is a clue up to that point, and then it is altogether lost.
                      Mr. Crawford. - I have evidence that the City Police did make a careful search in the tenement, but that was not until after the fact had come to their knowledge. I am afraid that that will not meet the point raised by you (to the juryman). There is the delay that took place. The man who found the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan Police.



                      (Daily News) A juror - How did you account for its being recent? - Because it seemed fresh, and if it had been long written it would have been rubbed by people passing. It was written on the black brick in good schoolboy's handwriting. The capitals would be under an inch high, and italics in proportion. The bricks are painted black up to about four feet high, like a dado, and above that are white.

                      Mr. Crawford - With the exception of a few questions to Long, that is the whole of the evidence I have to offer on the part of the police, but if there is any particular point the jury thinks can be cleared up, I shall be happy to answer.

                      A Juror - It appears strange that a policeman should find a piece of apron and then no further inquiry should be made. They had got a clue up to that point, and there it is lost utterly.

                      Mr. Crawford - You have heard what the constable said. I have witnesses to show that diligent search was made of every part of the premises in Goulston street.

                      The Juror - That is an answer to my question.

                      Mr. Crawford - Long, who found the apron, is one of the metropolitan police. He has gone to fetch his pocket book.

                      Proceedings were suspended until the return of the constable.


                      (Morning Advertiser) Mr. Crawford said that, excepting a few questions he had to put to the witness Long, who had gone away for his book, that was the whole of the evidence he proposed to call; but if there was any point which they would like cleared up he should be happy to render what assistance he could.

                      A juror - It seems surprising that a policeman should have found a piece of apron in the passage leading into a building, and that no further inquiry should have been made in the building itself. You get a clue up to that point, and then it is lost entirely.

                      Mr. Crawford - Long will be back; you can ask him. I may say with regard to a remark which fell from a juror with reference to the finding of the apron, that I have several members of the City Police here who made a careful search in every part of the tenement the moment the matter came to their knowledge.

                      The Juror - I think that is sufficient.

                      Mr. Crawford - Unfortunately, it did not come to their knowledge for two hours afterwards. I am afraid that will not answer the objection raised.

                      The Juror - I think it will.

                      Mr. Crawford - No, unfortunately there was a delay. The man who found this piece of apron is a member of the metropolitan police force, and he found it, I think he told us, at about twenty minutes to three.

                      The Juror - It is the man who found the piece of apron of whom I am complaining.

                      Mr. Crawford - He has gone to fetch his note book, but he will be here directly.


                      (Standard) Mr. Crawford said that, excepting a few questions he had to put to the witness Long, who had gone away for his book, that was the whole of the evidence he proposed to call; but if there was any point which theywould like cleared up he should be happy to render what assistance he could.

                      A juror - It seems surprising that a policeman should have found a piece of apron in the passage leading into a building, and that no further inquiry should have been made in the building itself. You get a clue up to that point, and then it is lost entirely.

                      Mr. Crawford - Long will be back; you can ask him. I may say with regard to a remark which fell from a juror with reference to the finding of the apron, that I have several members of the City Police here who made a careful search in every part of the tenement the moment the matter came to their knowledge.

                      The Juror - I think that is sufficient.

                      Mr. Crawford - Unfortunately, it did not come to their knowledge for two hours afterwards. I am afraid that will not answer the objection raised.

                      The Juror - I think it will.

                      Mr. Crawford - No, unfortunately there was a delay. The man who found this piece of apron is a member of the metropolitan police force, and he found it, I think he told us, at about twenty minutes to three.

                      The Juror - It is the man who found the piece of apron of whom I am complaining.

                      Mr. Crawford - He has gone to fetch his note book, but he will be here directly.
                      why do you persist in referring to newspaper reports when we have the official signed testimony?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Congratulations!


                        Yes, the entire court record is handwritten except where they used preprinted forms, but the testimony is all handwritten.
                        Each witness signed their testimony except Eliza Gold who placed a mark X, I guess she couldn't read or write.

                        You'll find Chapter 10 in the sourcebook The Eddowes Inquest, begins with the typewritten account transcribed I suppose by Stewart, of the original handwritten court record.
                        Stewart then followed that by the press account from the Times. So you have two accounts of the Eddowes Inquest in the Sourcebook.

                        Each press account is also different, as a rule the press version is more detailed, and of course the press included questions which do not exist in the Court Record.



                        They were, see above.
                        Each newspaper account (Times, Telegraph, Star, Evening News, etc.) all differ in a variety of ways. In some we have first-person testimony, other gave third-person accounts. Some questions & replies are not verbatim but paraphrase.
                        This is why it is necessary, in my opinion, to collate all the accounts to have a complete picture of the testimony.


                        Not a problem, I was the same with David (Orsam) a couple of years ago. There were details he knew about the court process that I didn't.
                        Cheers for that Wick
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



                        “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                        “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                          I'll just give an example here, for anyone who has Stewarts Ultimate Sourcebook, take a look at Halse's testimony. His testimony ends with this line:

                          "By the Jury - It looked as if it had been recently written.

                          Which means, a question was posed by the Jury, to which Halse replied (concerning the graffiti) "It looked as if it had been recently written".

                          Whereas press accounts give more testimony omitted by the Court Recorder.
                          All this information is missed by those who think the Court Record is the only source worth paying attention to.


                          (Daily Telegraph) Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found. There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.
                          Mr. Crawford: With the exception of a few questions to Long, the Metropolitan constable, that is the whole of the evidence I have to offer at the present moment on the part of the City police. But if any point occurs to the coroner or the jury I shall be happy to endeavour to have it cleared up.
                          A Juror: It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the buildings, and yet made no inquiries in the buildings themselves. There was a clue up to that point, and then it was altogether lost.
                          Mr. Crawford: As to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make diligent search in every part of the tenements the moment the matter came to their knowledge. But unfortunately it did not come to their knowledge until two hours after. There was thus delay, and the man who discovered the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan police.
                          A Juror: It is the man belonging to the Metropolitan police that I am complaining of.



                          (Times) By a juryman. - He assumed that the writing was recent, because from the number of persons living in the tenement he believed it would have been rubbed out had it been there for any time. There were about three lines of writing, which was in a good schoolboy hand.
                          By another juryman. - The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall.
                          A juryman. - It seems to me strange that a police constable would have found this piece of apron, and then for no inquiries to have been made in the building. There is a clue up to that point, and then it is altogether lost.
                          Mr. Crawford. - I have evidence that the City Police did make a careful search in the tenement, but that was not until after the fact had come to their knowledge. I am afraid that that will not meet the point raised by you (to the juryman). There is the delay that took place. The man who found the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan Police.



                          (Daily News) A juror - How did you account for its being recent? - Because it seemed fresh, and if it had been long written it would have been rubbed by people passing. It was written on the black brick in good schoolboy's handwriting. The capitals would be under an inch high, and italics in proportion. The bricks are painted black up to about four feet high, like a dado, and above that are white.

                          Mr. Crawford - With the exception of a few questions to Long, that is the whole of the evidence I have to offer on the part of the police, but if there is any particular point the jury thinks can be cleared up, I shall be happy to answer.

                          A Juror - It appears strange that a policeman should find a piece of apron and then no further inquiry should be made. They had got a clue up to that point, and there it is lost utterly.

                          Mr. Crawford - You have heard what the constable said. I have witnesses to show that diligent search was made of every part of the premises in Goulston street.

                          The Juror - That is an answer to my question.

                          Mr. Crawford - Long, who found the apron, is one of the metropolitan police. He has gone to fetch his pocket book.

                          Proceedings were suspended until the return of the constable.


                          (Morning Advertiser) Mr. Crawford said that, excepting a few questions he had to put to the witness Long, who had gone away for his book, that was the whole of the evidence he proposed to call; but if there was any point which they would like cleared up he should be happy to render what assistance he could.

                          A juror - It seems surprising that a policeman should have found a piece of apron in the passage leading into a building, and that no further inquiry should have been made in the building itself. You get a clue up to that point, and then it is lost entirely.

                          Mr. Crawford - Long will be back; you can ask him. I may say with regard to a remark which fell from a juror with reference to the finding of the apron, that I have several members of the City Police here who made a careful search in every part of the tenement the moment the matter came to their knowledge.

                          The Juror - I think that is sufficient.

                          Mr. Crawford - Unfortunately, it did not come to their knowledge for two hours afterwards. I am afraid that will not answer the objection raised.

                          The Juror - I think it will.

                          Mr. Crawford - No, unfortunately there was a delay. The man who found this piece of apron is a member of the metropolitan police force, and he found it, I think he told us, at about twenty minutes to three.

                          The Juror - It is the man who found the piece of apron of whom I am complaining.

                          Mr. Crawford - He has gone to fetch his note book, but he will be here directly.


                          (Standard) Mr. Crawford said that, excepting a few questions he had to put to the witness Long, who had gone away for his book, that was the whole of the evidence he proposed to call; but if there was any point which theywould like cleared up he should be happy to render what assistance he could.

                          A juror - It seems surprising that a policeman should have found a piece of apron in the passage leading into a building, and that no further inquiry should have been made in the building itself. You get a clue up to that point, and then it is lost entirely.

                          Mr. Crawford - Long will be back; you can ask him. I may say with regard to a remark which fell from a juror with reference to the finding of the apron, that I have several members of the City Police here who made a careful search in every part of the tenement the moment the matter came to their knowledge.

                          The Juror - I think that is sufficient.

                          Mr. Crawford - Unfortunately, it did not come to their knowledge for two hours afterwards. I am afraid that will not answer the objection raised.

                          The Juror - I think it will.

                          Mr. Crawford - No, unfortunately there was a delay. The man who found this piece of apron is a member of the metropolitan police force, and he found it, I think he told us, at about twenty minutes to three.

                          The Juror - It is the man who found the piece of apron of whom I am complaining.

                          Mr. Crawford - He has gone to fetch his note book, but he will be here directly.
                          And this
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            You have posed the same sort of questions that came to my mind years ago. Needless to say this is not the first time we have debated this signing issue.
                            In the Kelly inquest none of the testimony was signed by the witness.
                            So it was not a mandatory procedure, but then again Eddowes was a City inquest.

                            I can't see the court being held up while a witness reads, or has their testimony read to them.
                            It's quite possible that as they left the stand they were told to go to the Officer of the court who must have been given the court recorders account. The Officer deals with the signing, likely in an adjacent room, while the court carry's on uninhibited.
                            I think you will find that they sign the depositions at the time.

                            You all have tried and failed with the apron now you are trying to question how the depositions were taken its getting a tad painful to watch

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Well I would suggest the main witnesses that we are discussing could both read and write unless you know different and why mention jurors they have nothing to do with this

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              On what basis would you assume that?

                              Its not a case of knowing different. It’s just an acceptance of a possibility. Surely you know that levels of education were poor. It seems likely that Mary Kelly couldn’t read after all. As Wick said, Eliza Gold couldn’t read so why is it unlikely that one or more of the more important witnesses couldn’t read? And even if they could read some might have been very poor readers. No one’s saying that we know this to have been the case about anyone specifically but it’s a reasonable possibility.

                              A signature on a statement doesn’t make them completely error-free.

                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                                Hi Trevor,

                                The goal of a police investigation is also to secure a conviction, in a court of law. But that is not our goal.

                                I have to correct you there the goal of a police investigation is all about establishing the truth

                                What we now have to accept is that the evidence we have is it, as it is. Our goal is to make sense of what we have, and to interpret it as best we can, knowing full well that no interpretation can, or should, be viewed as 100% correct. We can't get to the specifics of the events, but to some extent we can narrow things down to categories of explanations.

                                Her wearing of the apron is a category of explanation, as there are many specifics we cannot know (the exact detail of how it was cut, the exact dimensions of the apron, the style of the apron, and so forth). When we switch to the alternative category of explanations, the "not wearing an apron", the evidence we do have either directly contradicts that, or requires the speculation of details for which we have no evidence.

                                Again I disagree we can determine that there were only two pieces of an apron, and by how they were described would not physically make up a full apron. One of those two pieces was found among her possessions the other in GS. These are in my opinon irrefutable facts, which show that when the body was stripped there was no apron recorded on her clothing list.

                                Would it be enough for court? of course, not, in a court of law we would need those details. Would a defense like you're offering about not wearing an apron work? No, it would be easily demonstrated by a prosecutor that your explanation is so self-contradictory that it cannot be said to constitute reasonable doubt given the evidence we have. Now, if it were an active police investigation and you could go out and actually test your ideas, and in the process found some real evidence that could not be easily explained if she was wearing an apron, then fine, you would have a case. But you can't do that, so you do not have a case.

                                Now I have a question for you.

                                You say above the evidence "is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason", and since we're all working with the same evidence set (though you cull it quite severely), why is the evidence unsafe when someone like me interprets it, but apparently rock solid when you do? - Jeff
                                Maybe because I have almost 40 years of assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases and still do to this very day, and you dont

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X