Inquest question

[Pierre]

Hi,

I bet someone knows a lot about this and could answer this question:

At the murder inquests, would all the witnesses be in the room at the same time when they testified or would they testify separately with the other witnesses waiting outside or coming in later?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Jon Guy]

Hi,

I bet someone knows a lot about this and could answer this question:

At the murder inquests, would all the witnesses be in the room at the same time when they testified or would they testify separately with the other witnesses waiting outside or coming in later?

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Have you thought about doing some research on the subject ?
I`d help but I see you are currently lecturing people again on methodology.

To start you off, John Pizer sat next to Sgt Thick when he wasn`t giving his evidence, and Margaret Cheek was outside the room when called by the Coroner to give her evidence. In fact, she refused to come into the room until the Coroner called her by her proper name, as Baxter referred to her as Margaret Cheeks.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

Have you thought about doing some research on the subject ?
I`d help but I see you are currently lecturing people again on methodology.

To start you off, John Pizer sat next to Sgt Thick when he wasn`t giving his evidence, and Margaret Cheek was outside the room when called by the Coroner to give her evidence. In fact, she refused to come into the room until the Coroner called her by her proper name, as Baxter referred to her as Margaret Cheeks.

I donīt have the time to look into it, and if you have general knowledge about the matter and donīt want to explain anything about it, as some sort of childish punishment because I am discussing methodology with people, so be it.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I donīt have the time to look into it, and if you have general knowledge about the matter and donīt want to explain anything about it, as some sort of childish punishment because I am discussing methodology with people, so be it.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

from reading John's reply it seems he has answered your question.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

from reading John's reply it seems he has answered your question.

Steve,

it is only one example. Could we generalize from this particular example to all the inquests?

[Elamarna]

Steve,

it is only one example. Could we generalize from this particular example to all the inquests?

Given that an inquest is a legal proceeding, I would say yes

[David Orsam]

Pierre,

from reading John's reply it seems he has answered your question.

Yes, he has. I'm certainly not aware of any rule that said that a witness could not listen to the evidence of others at an inquest.

Even at trial in those days this could happen unless the judge ordered otherwise. According to Seymour F. Harris' Principles of the Criminal Law from the period:

'When any collusion is suspected among the witnesses, or it is thought that any of them will be influenced by what they hear from counsel or other witnesses, those who have not yet been examined are ordered to leave the court until they are wanted, and after examination they are required to remain in court. The judge will do this, either at his own instance, or on the application of the opposite party.'

[Pierre]

Given that an inquest is a legal proceeding, I would say yes

So you mean the coroner had no say in the matter and could not chose to hold an inquest where the witnesses were questioned separately?

Do you happen to have some reference to such a rule within the law? It would certainly help before we go ahead and generalize.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374000]

Yes, he has.

Ah, there you are! I wondered when you were going to show up! Great!

I'm certainly not aware of any rule that said that a witness could not listen to the evidence of others at an inquest.

So your conclusion is only drawn from your own "awareness"? Come on, David. You would never accept something like that from me, for instance.

Even at trial in those days this could happen unless the judge ordered otherwise. According to Seymour F. Harris' Principles of the Criminal Law from the period:

It is getting better! So does that mean that it "could happen" that witnesses were giving testimony separately?

'When any collusion is suspected among the witnesses, or it is thought that any of them will be influenced by what they hear from counsel or other witnesses, those who have not yet been examined are ordered to leave the court until they are wanted, and after examination they are required to remain in court. The judge will do this, either at his own instance, or on the application of the opposite party.

Good! "Collusion", indeed. That could have been relevant for example at the Kelly inquest, couldnīt it?

Thanks, David.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

So your conclusion is only drawn from your own "awareness"? Come on, David. You would never accept something like that from me, for instance.

I'm not trying to argue anything Pierre, I was just doing my best to answer your question. I've read a lot of legal textbooks from the period and I've never seen any prohibition on witnesses hearing the evidence of other witnesses at an inquest. John has given you an reported example of a witness sitting in the coroner's court, listening to the evidence.

Given that the Mary Kelly inquest was very heavily reported in the newspapers I would have expected any ruling about witnesses having to wait outside of the coroner's court to have been reported. Further, I don't believe there could have been any possible concerns about "collusion" considering that no-one had been arrested for the murder.

[Rosella]

Properly constituted coroners courts had (and still have) benches for witnesses, the public and the Press, situated behind the table for counsel, solicitors and others watching a case on behalf of interested parties.

At Shoreditch Town Hall, where the Mary Kelly inquest took place, and the Whitechapel Working Lads Institute building (the Nichols inquest) and others, the court was more make-do. However, the same facilities for witnesses, the Public and the Press, would have had to be offered.

Coroners were very much in charge, though.. I have read of some cases in the 19th century where witnesses were kept away in side rooms before giving evidence. This seems to have been especially the case when middleclass females were called as witnesses, to protect them from the public gaze, presumably. In others witnesses just sat in court until called for.

[GUT]

I know it was sad that Cross was recognised by Mizen when he (Cross) was bought in.

Sounds like they were kept outside in that instance.

[David Orsam]

I should add that I'm equally not aware of any rule that said witnesses at an inquest had to sit in the courtroom to listen to the evidence of others prior to them giving evidence. No doubt many witnesses were not interested in sitting in the courtroom and preferred to have a cup of tea or whatever until they were called. Different coroners may also have had different practices as Rosella mentions.

I'm reminded of a passage from my own book, 'The Camden Town Murder Mystery' (p.3), relating to 1907:

"...the senior magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court made an order that, to prevent collusion, police officers would no longer be allowed to sit in his courtroom and listen to their colleagues give evidence in the witness box before they gave their own evidence. Shortly after this, the Coroner for West London, Mr Luxmore Drew, made an identical ruling during an inquest in Kensington on a man who had died in a police station after having been arrested for being drunk and incapable."

[Michael W Richards]

I should add that I'm equally not aware of any rule that said witnesses at an inquest had to sit in the courtroom to listen to the evidence of others prior to them giving evidence. [/I]"

Ive researched this question too David and it appears that you are correct with the above statement. There was no such mandate. Which means that technically George Hutchinson need not have waietd until after the session cessation to come forward with his remarks if he had hoped to avoid being confronted with or by other witnesses. One line of thought on his late appearance has been that he tried to avoid being seen, or challenged, by other witnesses.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374050]

I should add that I'm equally not aware of any rule that said witnesses at an inquest had to sit in the courtroom to listen to the evidence of others prior to them giving evidence. No doubt many witnesses were not interested in sitting in the courtroom and preferred to have a cup of tea or whatever until they were called. Different coroners may also have had different practices as Rosella mentions.

This is a very intelligent thing to say. Thank you, David.

Regards, Pierre