From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Curious Cat]

Hi,
sorry for delay in replying but having to navigate through the casebook to find where I got my info.

It was established that Arnold, Swanson and Long didnt write their reports until the 6th November, the eve of Eddowes inquest.
This was five and a half weeks after the event.
I refer you to the thread "The Apron" posted some years back...it was Simon Woods who bought it to my attention....not to sure about Halse now, maybe my memory has let me down on him.

Regards

I'm happy to admit that I have the odd blind spot here and there across the Whitechapel murders of 1888 and this appears to be one of them. I only know of the inquest that started and adjourned on 4th October and then resumed and ended on the 11th October.

What and where was a second one held on 7th November?

[spyglass]

This was the actual post, sorry again I misread it ...not easy trying to go through old posts on a phone on a bumpy train.



A police apologist would argue that the cops forgot, misremembered, conflated or were completely overwhelmed by such shocking events.

And the apologists might have a case with Eddowes, seeing that Commissioner Warren, Superintendent Arnold, Chief Inspector Swanson and PC Long were so concerned about bringing the killer to justice that they didn't write their "Night of the Bloody Apron" reports until 6th November, five-and-a-half-weeks after the event and, coincidentally, just in time to avoid possibly embarrassing questions in the just-reconvened session of the House of Commons.

regards

[Curious Cat]

This was the actual post, sorry again I misread it ...not easy trying to go through old posts on a phone on a bumpy train.



A police apologist would argue that the cops forgot, misremembered, conflated or were completely overwhelmed by such shocking events.

And the apologists might have a case with Eddowes, seeing that Commissioner Warren, Superintendent Arnold, Chief Inspector Swanson and PC Long were so concerned about bringing the killer to justice that they didn't write their "Night of the Bloody Apron" reports until 6th November, five-and-a-half-weeks after the event and, coincidentally, just in time to avoid possibly embarrassing questions in the just-reconvened session of the House of Commons.

regards

Oh I see. No worries.

Are these reports on the site?

[Wickerman]

Hi,
sorry for delay in replying but having to navigate through the casebook to find where I got my info.

It was established that Arnold, Swanson and Long didnt write their reports until the 6th November, the eve of Eddowes inquest.
This was five and a half weeks after the event.
I refer you to the thread "The Apron" posted some years back...it was Simon Woods who bought it to my attention....not to sure about Halse now, maybe my memory has let me down on him.

Regards

Ah, sorry, my mistake.
When you wrote "statements by Halse & Long", I assumed you meant their inquest testimony given on 11th Oct. We have no date for when those statements were put down on paper, only the date when they were delivered to the coroner's inquest - 11 Oct.
Those reports dated 6th Nov. are nothing to do with the inquest.

[Wickerman]

Oh I see. No worries.

Are these reports on the site?

Reports by Swanson, Long & Arnold are found in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, Evans & Skinner, pp.185-191.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, sorry, my mistake.
When you wrote "statements by Halse & Long", I assumed you meant their inquest testimony given on 11th Oct. We have no date for when those statements were put down on paper, only the date when they were delivered to the coroner's inquest - 11 Oct.
Those reports dated 6th Nov. are nothing to do with the inquest.

This is a grey area, unlike the murders that took place within the Met jurisdiction whereby witness statements were tendered in advance of the inquest my understanding is that the City police didn't tender statements in advance of the Eddowes inquest and gave their evidence verbatim which was taken down in court.

Any police/witness statements still in existence should be dated and signed as to when they were made.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Losmandris]

I have always Felt something odd about the statements of Halse and Long, especially when you remind yourself that their statements were written nearly two weeks after the event and almost identical ( as I remember it )
it's as if they were copying from a prepared script.

I now work in between Mitre Sq and Goulston street and have now walked all the possible escape routes from one to the other, which is more beneficial than reading maps as you get more of a feel of it all.
I'm leaning heavily to out of the Square and proceeding either church passage or the other passage ( name has escaped me ) through Creechurch and onwards through Gravel Lane.
The more short twist and turns the better for not being noticed.

Regards.

I think I did something similar when I was there a couple of weeks ago. Though it is difficult to get your bearing with the exits as Mitre Square has changed so much. The two locations as surprisingly close when you do it on foot and GS is very easy to end up in, especially if you are heading back towards WC.

[Wickerman]

This is a grey area, unlike the murders that took place within the Met jurisdiction whereby witness statements were tendered in advance of the inquest my understanding is that the City police didn't tender statements in advance of the Eddowes inquest and gave their evidence verbatim which was taken down in court.

Any police/witness statements still in existence should be dated and signed as to when they were made.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You think witness testimony was given by police from memory?
Sadly, no witness statements have survived, unlike we have in the Kelly Inquest. The few witness statements that were used by the coroner in that case luckily had been retained.
I would doubt the procedures would be any different. I have Rumbelow's book of his years in the City police, I Spy Blue, there might be something of relevance there.
[Just for clarity of the casual reader. 'Testimony' is a statement given in court that has been 'sworn-to', whereas a 'Statement' is given to police that is not 'sworn', it is given in good faith.]

That aside, PC Long does refer to making a report. It was captured in the Morning Advertiser & The Standard, of 12 Oct, he stated to the inquest: "I thought the best thing I could do after searching the stairs, and instructing other constables to watch the building, was to proceed as soon as possible to the police-station to make my report".

At the inquest Solicitor Crawford asked if Long "had not put "not" in the wrong place?". The implication being they were both looking at something written down.
This would be his witness testimony, only later did they send for PC Long's report (pocket-book).

In the Daily Telegraph, after PC Long had brought his pocket-book, the coroner asked him: "Both here, and in your inspector's report, the word "Jews" is spelt correctly?"

So it would seem the coroner is comparing two separate documents; one being his witness testimony, the other his report in his pocket-book.

The other point, and more important in my view is the fact the coroner needs to know which witnesses to bring to the inquest, so the police must take written statements from witnesses in advance. Otherwise the coroner will not know who to call in order to establish the 'who, when, where & by what means' the victim met their death.

[Trevor Marriott]

You think witness testimony was given by police from memory?
Sadly, no witness statements have survived, unlike we have in the Kelly Inquest. The few witness statements that were used by the coroner in that case luckily had been retained.
I would doubt the procedures would be any different. I have Rumbelow's book of his years in the City police, I Spy Blue, there might be something of relevance there.
[Just for clarity of the casual reader. 'Testimony' is a statement given in court that has been 'sworn-to', whereas a 'Statement' is given to police that is not 'sworn', it is given in good faith.]

That aside, PC Long does refer to making a report. It was captured in the Morning Advertiser & The Standard, of 12 Oct, he stated to the inquest: "I thought the best thing I could do after searching the stairs, and instructing other constables to watch the building, was to proceed as soon as possible to the police-station to make my report".

At the inquest Solicitor Crawford asked if Long "had not put "not" in the wrong place?". The implication being they were both looking at something written down.
This would be his witness testimony, only later did they send for PC Long's report (pocket-book).

In the Daily Telegraph, after PC Long had brought his pocket-book, the coroner asked him: "Both here, and in your inspector's report, the word "Jews" is spelt correctly?"

So it would seem the coroner is comparing two separate documents; one being his witness testimony, the other his report in his pocket-book.

The other point, and more important in my view is the fact the coroner needs to know which witnesses to bring to the inquest, so the police must take written statements from witnesses in advance. Otherwise the coroner will not know who to call in order to establish the 'who, when, where & by what means' the victim met their death.

But as stated the City coroners courts operated differently to the met coroners courts. There is in the police a role called coroners officer who prepares the case for the coroner so the coroner does not always see the statements before the inquest and therefore is not in a position to determine what witnesses are called. I am unsure as to whether that applied in 1888.

If the officers had written down their testimony in the form of a report or in a pocket book they could have simply read from either the inquest testimony doesn't lean towards that having taken place.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

But as stated the City coroners courts operated differently to the met coroners courts. There is in the police a role called coroners officer who prepares the case for the coroner so the coroner does not always see the statements before the inquest and therefore is not in a position to determine what witnesses are called. I am unsure as to whether that applied in 1888.

If the officers had written down their testimony in the form of a report or in a pocket book they could have simply read from either the inquest testimony doesn't lean towards that having taken place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have not heard of a coroner's officer in 1888, these were early days in the police, not as sophisticated as today.
From what I understand the coroner's clerk collected (or received) the statements taken by police and either him or the coroner selected the relevant statements to be used.

What I was meaning was, when statements are being collected by the investigating officers, rather than interview Halse or Long, they would take copies of their reports as statements.
Neither Halse or Long would be expected to read their reports at the inquest because the officers are there to answer questions. The coroner has already read their report which forms the basis for the questions the coroner will ask, or at least that is my guess, because that is the procedure with the common witness, and we don't seem to have anything else tangible to go on.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have not heard of a coroner's officer in 1888, these were early days in the police, not as sophisticated as today.
From what I understand the coroner's clerk collected (or received) the statements taken by police and either him or the coroner selected the relevant statements to be used.

This is the same role I mentioned, and the point is that if that person selected what witnesses were summoned then the coroner could not have and it seems that all those who had some direct involvement and even those on the periphery were automatically called in any event.

What I was meaning was, when statements are being collected by the investigating officers, rather than interview Halse or Long, they would take copies of their reports as statements.

Neither Halse or Long would be expected to read their reports at the inquest because the officers are there to answer questions. The coroner has already read their report which forms the basis for the questions the coroner will ask, or at least that is my guess, because that is the procedure with the common witness, and we don't seem to have anything else tangible to go on.

But they would still have to give their verbal depositions and sign them there and then in court

The point I am making relates to the officer who arrested Eddowes for being drunk and the other officer who both stated she was wearing an apron. Neither could have made mention in any report made at the time in reference to seeing her wearing an apron that issue only arose later so any mention they made about seeing her wearing an apron days later at the inquest is in my opinion suspect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[spyglass]

[=Losmandris;n804928]
I think I did something similar when I was there a couple of weeks ago. Though it is difficult to get your bearing with the exits as Mitre Square has changed so much. The two locations as surprisingly close when you do it on foot and GS is very easy to end up in, especially if you are heading back towards WC. [/QUOTE]

Unfortunately the Square now is beyond recognition,
but at least all three possible escape routes are still in place, so I found it ok two follow the differing routes out. And on to Goulston St.

[spyglass]

I think I did something similar when I was there a couple of weeks ago. Though it is difficult to get your bearing with the exits as Mitre Square has changed so much. The two locations as surprisingly close when you do it on foot and GS is very easy to end up in, especially if you are heading back towards WC.

Unfortunately the Square now is beyond recognition,
but at least all three possible escape routes are still in place, so I found it ok two follow the differing routes out. And on to Goulston St.

[Curious Cat]

Reports by Swanson, Long & Arnold are found in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, Evans & Skinner, pp.185-191.

Thanks. Would that be the only place they've been published?

[Wickerman]

Thanks. Would that be the only place they've been published?

https://archive.org/details/ultimatejackripp0000unse/page/184/mode/2up

This is a site where you can borrow the book for 1 hour, which opens up the non accessible sections.
I've saved it at p.184 but you will need to request access for '1 hour' where the pages will then turn grey which means temporary access.