Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

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

  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Black Country?

    https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread...k+country+kate

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    So you're familiar with the yam yam accent then
    Not really, although my horse-slaughtering ancestors moved from Whitechapel to Wolves/Bilston briefly (1850-60).

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    I totally agree.
    So you're familiar with the yam yam accent then

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Good job he wasn't from Dudley, or Baxter would have had no chance.

    As I said though, perhaps they considered it an inconvenience to employ an interpreter at the inquest. It could be that they couldn't find an interpreter who was available at the time of inquest.

    To jump to the conclusion that Schwartz's absence from the inquest equates to his story being dismissed as a fabrication is very wrong indeed.
    I totally agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Seemingly, Baxter had trouble interpreting Tomkins's Manchester accent😉.
    But he presumably already knew his testimony would add nothing to the how/where/why question.

    Witnesses who had no direct knowledge of the h/w/w often gave evidence at inquests.
    Good job he wasn't from Dudley, or Baxter would have had no chance.

    As I said though, perhaps they considered it an inconvenience to employ an interpreter at the inquest. It could be that they couldn't find an interpreter who was available at the time of inquest.

    To jump to the conclusion that Schwartz's absence from the inquest equates to his story being dismissed as a fabrication is very wrong indeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Schwartz could not speak or understand English. Perhaps they decided that it wasn't worth the hassle of providing an interpreter, it could be as simple as that. It's been pointed out that there were enough witnesses to determine approximate time of death.
    Seemingly, Baxter had trouble interpreting Tomkins's Manchester accent😉.
    But he presumably already knew his testimony would add nothing to the how/where/why question.

    Witnesses who had no direct knowledge of the h/w/w often gave evidence at inquests.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But there is nothing to tell us that Abberline took down anything in the form of notes.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Exactly, so if he didn't, why do it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Observer
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    So why was Henry Tomkins called to give evidence at Polly Nichol's inquest? Or Pizer at Chapman's?
    Schwartz could not speak or understand English. Perhaps they decided that it wasn't worth the hassle of providing an interpreter, it could be as simple as that. It's been pointed out that there were enough witnesses to determine approximate time of death.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Thankyou, I understand that. But the person who claims to be the last one to see the victim alive is borderline. Much will depend on what they tell the investigator whether they are treated as a witness or a suspect. In my view Abberline used the more aggressive term to indicate he interviewed him thoroughly.



    My apologies for the apparently stupid question, but

    I see no point in interviewing/interrogating anyone if you don't take notes.

    So, Abberline's interrogation notes existed, and have not survived.
    It's just my contention we wouldn't have half the unjustified suspicions leveled against Hutchinson if those notes were still available.
    Hutchinson's initial statement was never intended to include all the answers, but some members don't seem to understand this.
    But there is nothing to tell us that Abberline took down anything in the form of notes.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Witnesses are not interrogated, they are interviewed.
    Thankyou, I understand that. But the person who claims to be the last one to see the victim alive is borderline. Much will depend on what they tell the investigator whether they are treated as a witness or a suspect. In my view Abberline used the more aggressive term to indicate he interviewed him thoroughly.

    When a witness is interviewed a witness statement is usually taken.

    When a suspect is interrogated the officer would make notes of what is said during the interrogation, if the suspect were admitting crimes then a defendant statement may be take which the suspect would sign at the conclusion and would be used in evidence.
    My apologies for the apparently stupid question, but I see no point in interviewing/interrogating anyone if you don't take notes.

    So, Abberline's interrogation notes existed, and have not survived.
    It's just my contention we wouldn't have half the unjustified suspicions leveled against Hutchinson if those notes were still available.
    Hutchinson's initial statement was never intended to include all the answers, but some members don't seem to understand this.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    Hear hear.

    Monty
    So why was Henry Tomkins called to give evidence at Polly Nichol's inquest? Or Pizer at Chapman's?
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 01-06-2019, 04:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    The purpose of an inquest is to establish when, where and how someone died. The police surgeon's evidence, combined with that of Diemschutz establishes the time; the place is pretty much self-evident and the cause of death is obvious. Schwartz's evidence would add nothing and the coroner presumably decided that he wasn't needed. He would have been a vital witness to one party or the other at trial, but that's another matter. Schwartz not being called to give evidence by the coroner does not negate the credibility of his evidence.
    Hear hear.

    Monty

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    cd, dont be obstuse. In any document, press, police, private observation, there is no record of Israel Schwartz'z statement in any format being made available at the Inquest into Liz Strides death. Theres your fact.
    The purpose of an inquest is to establish when, where and how someone died. The police surgeon's evidence, combined with that of Diemschutz establishes the time; the place is pretty much self-evident and the cause of death is obvious. Schwartz's evidence would add nothing and the coroner presumably decided that he wasn't needed. He would have been a vital witness to one party or the other at trial, but that's another matter. Schwartz not being called to give evidence by the coroner does not negate the credibility of his evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    When an important witness, or suspect is interrogated. Does the officer write down what the person being questioned said?
    Witnesses are not interrogated, they are interviewed.

    When a witness is interviewed a witness statement is usually taken.

    When a suspect is interrogated the officer would make notes of what is said during the interrogation, if the suspect were admitting crimes then a defendant statement may be take which the suspect would sign at the conclusion and would be used in evidence.

    Hutchinson was only treated as a witness.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    The signatures are completely different
    Whoever signed the name wasn't used to writing it and by the time sheets 2 and 3 were signed he had clearly forgotten how he wrote the capital H on sheet one .
    The two capitals are the cornerstone of a signature
    The H in the first is rather ornate
    The second is bog standard and by the third I suspect he realised his mistake and deliberately made it look messy .
    My view is that all three were by the same hand but by someone who was signing a signature that wasn't his own
    Mine is that all three are written by the same hand (Hutchinson's) but that he considered writing his middle name on the first page before realising (or being told) that it wasn't necessary. Hence the rather ornate 'H' which was originally going to be a 'T'. In the post CJA 1967 era a witness signs his or her statement at the foot of each page. I doubt it was significantly different in the LVP. Forging signatures would have been extremely foolish.
    Last edited by Bridewell; 01-06-2019, 03:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X