Room 13 Miller's Court

[Dave O]

Hi Rob,

You make a great point that it's important to look at everything, and you are right. While we have to judge every article upon its own merit, and many are just wrong, the newspapers often preserve accounts that otherwise would not have survived and so are very valuable. I don't think anyone could argue with that, but I would like to say that the depositions would not have been paraphrased accounts, though it's true that they leave out the questions and just consolidate the answers. There is a good reason that where there is conflict in accounts, it's usually the best bet to go with the official record if one is available, as Stewart has written.

It's important to consider how a clear case of murder would effect an inquest's procedure. In all other kinds of death, coroners regarded depositions as their private papers during their own lifetimes and they did not have to let anybody at all see them if they didn't want to, in fact there was no law that said they had to take down testimony at all.

But murder cases were different. The coroner would have to produce the depositions under specific circumstances, by law, since the inquest might spawn a murder trial. They would have to at some point send them over to the relevant criminal court clerk, where they would have been entered as secondary evidence in a trial, and the coroner would have been required to attend that trial as a witness. In cases where the inquest made an accusation of murder against some specific individual, the coroner was required to allow the defendant the opportunity to purchase a copy of the depositions. There was also an 1884 Home Office circular, which I have not read but have seen cited, that requested coroners to forward a copy to them as well.

Given the relevance of murder depositions to other parties, it was important that they be very accurate, and where procedure for depositions in all other cases is neglected in legislation, Section 4(2) of The Coroners Act 1887 specifically addresses what should happen when an inquest addresses a murder:

It shall be the duty of the coroner in a case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstances 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.

The 5th edition of Jervis on the Duties of Coroners (1888) has a little commentary on general procedure related to this section:

The coroner should where possible follow the precise expressions of the witnesses in the first person. The depositions are afterwards forwarded under section 5 to the proper officer of the court in which the trial is to be, and copies supplied, upon payment, to the person charged in the inquisition, if he requires them. (p. 39)

So, these are good reasons for them to have been as accurate as possible. It's true that errors due to mishearing can creep in, and of course they didn't have tape recorders (I believe Gareth makes reference to Sarah Lewis' address in "Great Powell" rather than "Great Pearl"), and they didn't have access to proper courtrooms but instead had to scrounge and beg for alternative spaces to hold inquests, whatever they could find as if they were gypsies, but I suppose they did the best they could. The goal as outlined in Jervis (a standard reference work, I believe since the 1820s, and still in publication today) would have been to write down the witness' exact words as best as could be done, those that were relevant. So if the depositions record Prater as saying "I live at No. 20 Room Millers Court up stairs I live in the room over where deceased live", this is something very close or exactly to what came out of her mouth. I can see why Stewart would place an emphasis on the official records, because the people who made them had concerns in mind that the press did not have to worry about. If I recall correctly, Macdonald's deputy Alfred Hodgkinson was a solicitor, and I think he would have been aware of the need for accuracy (I am pretty confident that he is the person who took down the MJK depositions).

I remember reading somewhere that journalists took down their notes in shorthand. Not to knock the newspapers though as they are sometimes our only record of what was said at these inquests (where the depositions are lost), and very often include valuable color that would not be found in the depositions (you have cited the M.A., and I see that they have Barnett kissing the Bible, "Oh, well, I don't know nothing about such things. I've never been on such an errand before." great stuff).

Cheers,
Dave

[robhouse]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you that the depositions are probably more accurate as to the facts than the inquest transcriptions. On the other hand, they often seem to be a bit more brief.

But as far as I understand, the document Stewart posted and quoted was not Prater's deposition, but rather was just an official version of the inquest transcription. I assume I am interpreting these things right. I am using the Ultimate Sourcebook. The Ultimate gives the "police witness statements" first (these are the depositions I assume). Then it gives the text of the inquest papers from the Greater London Record Office, which I believe are the official papers of the transcript from the day of the inquest... in other words it was transcribed like all the press versions. So as I said, I don't see why we should regard it as any more accurate than the press versions.

Prater's deposition does not mention the position of her room at all, but merely says she lives in "No 20 room 27 Dorset Street'.


Rob House

[John Bennett]

It's true that errors due to mishearing can creep in, and of course they didn't have tape recorders (I believe Gareth makes reference to Sarah Lewis' address in "Great Powell" rather than "Great Pearl"), and they didn't have access to proper courtrooms but instead had to scrounge and beg for alternative spaces to hold inquests, whatever they could find as if they were gypsies, but I suppose they did the best they could.

Interesting you should mention this, as a good trawl through press reports throws up many inconsistencies.

We have:
Great 'Powell' Street (Great Pearl Street) as already mentioned. (MJK inquest)
PC Hart (actually PC Hyde) in Frances Coles inquest.
Charles Brittan etc (actually Charles Bretton), Polly Nichols inquest
Walter Purkiss (probably Walter Purkins), Polly Nichols inquest
Cooley's Lodging House, Thrawl Street (more than likely Cooney's), MJK.

All sorts really. Plus Hardiman, Long/Burrell, Mrs Carthy, Mrs Buki, all of which seem to fall foul of 'Chinese Whispers'.

Sometimes it is possible to weed out the real people. Other times, it's impossible.

JB

[Simon Wood]

Hi John,

I think we can count the name Walter Purkiss as correct.

Here he is from The Times, 3rd March 1880—



Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hmm, it seems I may be altering my original idea, since the majority of the press versions I have seen DO in fact say Prater lived over Kelly's room. See below:

Elizabeth Prater said-My husband is a boot machinist, but he has deserted me this five years. I live in No. 20 Room, Miller's-court, and the deceased lived below me. - Daily News

Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, said: My husband, William Prater, was a boot machinist, and he has deserted me. I live at 20 Room, in Miller's-court, above the shed. Deceased occupied a room below. - Daily Telegraph

Elizabeth Prater, wife of William Prater, said - I was deserted by my husband five years ago. I live at No. 20, in Miller's-court. - Morning Advertiser

Elizabeth Prater, wife of a boot machinist living in No 20 Room, Miller's court, said that the deceased lived in the room below her. - St James Gazette

Elizabeth Prater, a married woman, living apart from her husband, said she occupied No. 20 room, Miller's-court, her room being just over that occupied by the deceased. If deceased moved about in her room much witness could hear her. - Times


In any case, I still stand by my original statement... that the press versions of the inquest might be as accurate as the officially transcribed version.

It still seems best to read a number of reports, including the official report and the witness deposition, and then analyze them as a whole, in an attempt to arrive at what the witness actually said. For example, most reports (including the official report) leave out the questions asked by the Coroner, the Jury etc. Also, some versions are not transcribed in the first person, but rather the third person.

So for example: in Mary Ann Cox's testimony, when she mentions hearing a man leave at 5:45, she was asked a number of questions (as reported in the Telegraph)

At a quarter-past six I heard a man go down the court. That was too late for the market.

From what house did he go ? - I don't know.

Did you hear the door bang after him ? - No.

Then he must have walked up the court and back again? - Yes.

It might have been a policeman ? - It might have been.

The Morning Advertiser wrote this as "I heard a man go out at 6.15. He might have gone out and come back again for all I know. It might have been a policeman." This seems to imply (wrongly) that Cox thought the man might have been a policeman, when in fact she was simply responding to that suggestion asked by the Coroner.

The Daily News wrote this exchange as "In the morning about a quarter-past six I heard a man go out of the court, but I do not know who he was."

The times wrote "Witness could not sleep, and heard a man go out of the court about a quarter past 6. It might have been a policeman for all witness knew."



Rob H

[Dave O]

Hi Rob,

I'm not sure I'm following and this is probably my fault. The depositions are the inquest testimony, either sworn or affirmed in court, so that is what I'm talking about, not the police statements. I do not have photocopies (which is a big fat hole in my studies that I intend to remedy soon as it's best to refer to something as close to original as you can get). Stewart's scan is a detail from Prater's inquest deposition, given in court, and not the police statement. So it was at the inquest that Prater said she lived above Mary Kelly. The police statements that you mention at the beginning of the chapter in Sourcebook, if I understand correctly, are also included in the files of the inquest--if you look at the chapter notes, you will see that they are to be found in the same file. But those were done by the police on a totally different occasion, before the inquest. I assume that the reason that they appear in the inquest files is because they were supplied to Macdonald by Abberline so he could decide who to have testify, i.e. they are the basis for the later inquest and these copies of the statements (I do not think they are original) were retained by the coroner.

Does that make sense, or have I totally misunderstood you? If I have, please accept my apology in advance and sort me out

Yes indeed, John Bennett, though I wasn't aware of some those those. I believe the Irish Times also refers to Sarah Lewis and Great Powell street.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Regarding the coroner's mythical policeman in Millers Court, I think it's fascinating how not one beat constable was summoned to the inquest.

Where were all the local cops on the morning of 9th November?

Regards,

Simon

PS. Expect a post from Sam Flynn re: the location of Prater's room.

[Jane Coram]

Residents Miller's Court

Hi,

I think that map looks spot on, just about the best I've seen of the court.

The only other info I have that isn't on there is that there was a man engaged as a market porter in room 3 (downstairs rooms) which came from a Daily Telegraph, although I don't know which one. I've got a John Clark, in downstairs rooms 7 - couldn't tell you where I got that from, but I think it's accurate, and an Elizabeth Bushman above him in number 8 - I haven't got a clue where I got that from either!

Not much help I know as I can't source them, but someone might know where they came from!

I'm still uncertain as to where Liz Prater was exactly, but I would tend to go with the majority of the reports that say she was directly over Mary.

There is a newspaper sketch of Kitty Ronan's murder somewhere on the boards here (there was anyway) and it seems to suggest that the door to Liz's room was on the left of the staircase, which would put her directly above Mary. Of course we all know what newspaper sketches can be like, but it does agree with most of the reports.

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[Dave O]

Hi again Rob,

Just to add--you write "It still seems best to read a number of reports, including the official report and the witness deposition, and then analyze them as a whole, in an attempt to arrive at what the witness actually said. For example, most reports (including the official report) leave out the questions asked by the Coroner, the Jury etc."

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I think the press reports of inquests are generally very good since court was open and the press could be there, hear testimony, and take notes. With Baxter's depositions gone, we have a lot of reason to be thankful that the inquests were open and that the press covered them in detail. But I would just add that when we have the depositions, or faithful transcriptions of them in Sourcebook, where the press reports conflict on a detail that's in a sworn deposition from the coroner's court, I would place more emphasis on the deposition for the reasons I gave in my first post.

[Jane Coram]

Sorry ps

Sorry, me again,

The building at the end where you have the question mark was almost certainly the 3 privys for the residents of the court in part and the rest of it, I just have down as 'unoccupied in 1888', so probably a storage place or empty dwelling at
the time of the murder.

xxxxxx

[The Grave Maurice]

Where were all the local cops on the morning of 9th November?
PS. Expect a post from Sam Flynn re: the location of Prater's room.

Simon,

You raise a good point which I've thought about a few times myself. This was the only example among the C5 where a policeman wasn't at least in the vicinity at the time of the murder. We often hear that the police avoided Dorset Street, or would patrol it only in pairs, yet Prater didn't reject the possibility that a copper could have been in Miller's Court, alone, in the early morning. Had all the local patrolmen been assigned to other duties that day because of the Lord Mayor's celebration?

And I think Sam pretty much shot his bolt on this topic the last time it came up. I imagine that he won't want to get involved in it again---although he might pop by to tell us both to stay on topic.

[robhouse]

Yes Dave,

That makes sense, and I apparently misunderstood what you meant by deposition (I mistook the deposition for the police statements.) So yes your point is well taken. I am still not sure I agree with your conclusion that the deposition would be more accurate hat the press accounts however (and I do not have the Ultimate with me at the moment), but in my recollection, the most detailed versions were in the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Advertiser. These also tended to include the Coroner's questions, so the responses (in my opinion) would tend to be closer to what actually came out of the witnesses' mouths.

I can compare these closer when I get home... but if you are to compare the Daily Telegraph and the Morning Advertiser versions, they are rather close... and both are more detailed (if I remember correctly) than the depositions. Also, I do not think the Morning Advertiser and Daily Telegraph versions were copies of each other. So how is it that these versions (if they indeed contain more detail and more information than the depositions) could be LESS accurate than the depositions?

Unless of course the D. Telegraph and M. Advertiser just made up words that the witnesses said. But I think reading the accounts, and comparing them, it seems (to me anyways) that this is not the case.

Again, I think you need to actually compare all the accounts. Again I take your point... in theory the depositions should be more accurate. In practice, I do not think they are.

Rob H

[robhouse]

Hi Jane,

thanks for the info. I have updated the map with your suggestions.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

It's true. You learn something every day.

Honest to God, I've been at this lark for thirty five years but have never before heard of John Clark and Elizabeth Bushman living at 7 & 8 Millers Court.

Thanks.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Well Simon,

My only source for this is Jane Coram, and she admitted she can't remember where she got it from... so take it with a grain of salt. Maybe someone can enlighten us all...

Rob H