Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

Summaries or notes,Jeff,it doesn't answer the question of whether it was official trancript recordings,or how they were taken by the recorder,and it certainly doesn't rule out the possibility the original transcipt was taken down in shorthand,and then transcribed back in longhand or text.We will never know.That however is a side issue and has no bearing,that I can see,on the validity or otherwise,of the evidence.So I'll leave it there.

Hi harry,

The two bits for Long are not from the witness transcripts, those are listed at the beginings and appear to be an official "header page" type thing, indicating who either is to testify, and about what, or who did testify and about what (I don't know if it's a summary/index made from the police statements prior to the inquest, and so a sort of "role call" type thing, or if they were made after the inquest to go at the start of the transcripts.

Later ones, showing Eliza Gold's mark and John Kelly's signatures, show the inquest witness transripts, taken in long hand, signed/marked by the witness and the next statement beginning immediately afterwards. The general appearance is that the witness, upon completing their testimony, goes over to the court recorder, signs the page, and then the next witness starts their presentation. There would be no time to transcribe from short hand, and if they did, one would expect each witness to be on their own set of pages and for the document to be written more neatly. These look to be the transcript written as the witness spoke, and so taken in long hand. You may interpret them differently, but without some sort of indication they were done differently, the documents we have do not have the appearance of being a 2nd draft in my view. That's why I've said in the past the testimony was taken in long hand, but of course, feel free to draw your own conclusions. As you say, it's a side issue, but one I thought worth presenting the basis for my view so others may decide for themselves.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Yes, the London Met. Archives has them under the digital documents, here:

https://search.lma.gov.uk/scripts/mw...uage=144&file=[WWW_LMA]home.html

Thanks Jeff.
I did have the website for the LMA, I just wasn't aware they had put this up on-line available for everyone.
You're right that link didn't quite work but I know what to look for.

If anyone else used it, just click on Digital Documents, then enter Eddowes Inquest in the Search box, that'll take you right to a list of four collections, it's the 3rd one down.

This should at least help Harry understand what he's talking about.
The reference in A-Z to Langham's notes is simply the correct name for Inquest papers. Langham himself scribbled some notes on Foster's drawings of Mitre Square, those are the only notes made by Langham as we interpret the term. Foster's drawings are not part of these inquest papers.

The brief summaries either are indications to the coroner about what each witness will testify about, or are summaries after testimony was given. In either case, they are official documents summarizing the information, and so reflect the information as the court understood it to be.

Actually, both lists appear to be prior to the inquest. In the first list I mentioned (2 pages) each brief note beside a witness begins "will", as in will bring, or will present, will provide, etc. So clearly made before the inquest.
The ornate hand (3 pages) is not clear, each note is a bit ambiguous as to when it was written, but I notice Lawende is written Lawrence (his name was correctly established at the inquest), and the brief note reads "can give a description of the supposed murderer".

Those two points alone tend to suggest this ornate list was also written before the inquest.

[Wickerman]

- So it was not a mandatory procedure.

It was.

Coroners Act 1887:

It shall be the duty of the coroner in case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath
of those who know the facts and circumstance of the case,or so much of such statement as is material, and any such
deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.

Yes, I know what's written, but it was not followed in each case, as evidenced by the Kelly papers. So, "not mandatory" meaning not always followed.

If that was the case, then Barnett, Bowyer. Mccarthy, the first 3 witnesses at least in the Mary Kelly inquest would have had signatures. I think everybody waited until the end, then they sign the statements, and if the coroner/jury had a question they can recall the witness and then he/she would not have to re-sign it.

It's also possible, incentive for the witnesses to stay was the fact the coroner, on termination of the inquest (you'll find this in the Act too) must pay the fee to the witness. Yet, there are some witnesses who never received their fee. It's reported in the press, I'll try to find it.

- In the Kelly inquest none of the testimony was signed by the witness.

I have argued years ago the Kelly inquests was ordered from above to conclude and finish so there are no signatures. That's why it was short. I think the thread No PC on Dorset St. or something. I have more reasons why but I do not want to argue again.

Maybe, but that's not proof. You 'think' it was ordered from above.
You can't insist signatures were mandatory, when you admit it was not done in the Kelly case - regardless of the reason.
All I pointed out was it couldn't have been mandatory if it wasn't done in a different case - I don't care what the reason was.

Waiting till the end to sign? - do you mean end of day, or end of inquest?
The coroner only pays the witness at the end of the inquest, so expecting them to remember what they said is a little unrealistic. But if they had to read it all through again to refresh their memory days? later, that's another unrealistic expectation.
I think they were just told to sign, so they did, but as to 'when', that is still an open question.

[Wickerman]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes Trevor, but there are times when you hide it well.

[Wickerman]

The following is taken from a 1880's newspaper.
Judge Lumb said that in reference to the shorthand notes alluded to,in every court in England,shorthand writers attended the court,not officially,but to take note of the cases,so that afterwards,if the notes were required,who ever wanted them would have to pay for them.

So here (above) you Harry, are claiming that by some (unspecified) date in the 1800's, there was a shorthand recorder "in every court in England".
And I have told you the criminal courts are not the same as the Inquest courts.

However, here is a report from the West Sussex County Times, where it is claimed that by February 1913, shorthand was still not universal in the court system. It even mentions the Old Bailey, so there can be no dispute which courts are being referred to.


West Sussex County Times, Feb. 1913.

There never has been an issue in the use of shorthand at criminal courts, especially the Old Bailey.

[Wickerman]

There are two other points of trivia in that last post.
1 - the Judge only takes down in writing what he thinks is relevant, not everything said.
2 - the testimony is read back to the witness after each witness has finished his testimony.

[Wickerman]

Just out of interest, here from 1884 is a Judge complaining that in his opinion the abbreviated notes he takes ('Notes' being the witness testimony), is more relevant and useful than the more complete shorthand versions which include - "...reproducing indiscriminatly anything that passes in the course of a trial". Alluding to the versions of his inquest published in the newspapers.



Trevor should make note of the necessary editing that takes place with "official testimony" - Official, does not mean always reliable and complete.
Here we read that testimony taken down by the court recorder can be limited to... "what is in the strictest sense admissable evidence".

[Wickerman]

I'm giving Harry a real treat here, here is another complaint from a newspaper dated Nov. 1925, and the need for a shorthand recorder in every court.


Shipley Times & Express, Nov. 13, 1925.

Harry, when you decide to change your argument, just let me know.

[The Baron]

The info available does not depend on what you think Eddowes did or did not do. After Hutt's 1:00 AM sighting.
it's blank from after 1:00 AM to 2:20 AM..
We rely on Collard/Browns testimonies when in the mortuary the body got stripped whether the apron was worn when she was killed.
No you don't understand the argument and still don't.
But whatever.

Fair post!

And of course if she went looking for a client, an apron is not that attractive or appealing is it?! let alone an old dirty oder sewn one




The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm giving Harry a real treat here, here is another complaint from a newspaper dated Nov. 1925, and the need for a shorthand recorder in every court.


Shipley Times & Express, Nov. 13, 1925.

Harry, when you decide to change your argument, just let me know.

I’d say that’s a done deal Wick.

[Wickerman]

Apparently, a Judge (or Coroner in our case) would have to stop proceedings while he completes his notes of the testimony.
The snippet below came from an article too long to post, so I just post the relevant sentence.


The Scotsman, Sept. 1930.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair post!

And of course if she went looking for a client, an apron is not that attractive or appealing is it?! let alone an old dirty oder sewn one




The Baron

It’s absolutely mind-blowing to read posts so divorced from reality as this one. Can anyone possibly even contemplate the suggestion that a Victorian East End prostitute might have considered an apron as an impediment to her success in finding a client at 1.00am? Or that some drunken punter might have thought “I’m not going with her, she’s wearing an apron?”

The suggestion that for some obscure, pointless, inexplicable reason Catherine Eddowes took off her apron between the time that she left the station and the time that she ran into her killer is a pretty perfect example of the extent that some will go to (and some will simply jump on the bandwagon for the sake of it)

Just when I think I’ve heard everything we still hear more egregious nonsense.

[Joshua Rogan]

Apparently, a Judge (or Coroner in our case) would have to stop proceedings while he completes his notes of the testimony.
The snippet below came from an article too long to post, so I just post the relevant sentence.


The Scotsman, Sept. 1930.

Hi Jon,

A day or two ago I posted a snippet from the Daily News that mentions Langham wtiting notes as the witnesss answered. Here it is again;

"He wore the fustian clothes of a market labourer, with a light blue scarf round his neck, and spoke with a clear, deep, sonorous voice, looking composedly round the court while the Coroner was writing down his answers."


Harry's post clearly states that any shorthand writers in attendance were unofficial - possibly pressmen - who then sold their copy to any interested parties. If the coroner was making his own notes it would seem somewhat extravagant to spend his limited funds on another copy.

[Wickerman]

I’d say that’s a done deal Wick.

Yeh, but they're only newspaper stories, so who's gonna believe them.....

[The Baron]

It’s absolutely mind-blowing to read posts so divorced from reality as this one. Can anyone possibly even contemplate the suggestion that a Victorian East End prostitute might have considered an apron as an impediment to her success in finding a client at 1.00am? Or that some drunken punter might have thought “I’m not going with her, she’s wearing an apron?”

The suggestion that for some obscure, pointless, inexplicable reason Catherine Eddowes took off her apron between the time that she left the station and the time that she ran into her killer is a pretty perfect example of the extent that some will go to (and some will simply jump on the bandwagon for the sake of it)

Just when I think I’ve heard everything we still hear more egregious nonsense.

Your argument that she doesn't have reasons to take off her apron that night has been smashed and defeated and teared into pieces just like that old apron.





The Baron