Inquest question

[GUT]

Now I'm picturing a high school locker room with a jury.

Probably not far from the situation actually.

[Errata]

The atmosphere in court wouldn't have been improved either by having several working class people sitting there who hadn't had the opportunity to have a bath or even a good wash before they came to give evidence. Before the invention of underarm deodorant being in a closed situation with others may have been quite unpleasant! So perhaps it was just as well some witnesses were kept outside until called.

Now I'm picturing a high school locker room with a jury.

[Rosella]

The atmosphere in court wouldn't have been improved either by having several working class people sitting there who hadn't had the opportunity to have a bath or even a good wash before they came to give evidence. Before the invention of underarm deodorant being in a closed situation with others may have been quite unpleasant! So perhaps it was just as well some witnesses were kept outside until called.

[Errata]

The way I see it Jon is that most witnesses wouldn't have had the slightest interest in hearing the evidence. They turned up at the start of the inquest, presented themselves to the coroner and were told to sit in a waiting room until they were called. This arrangement satisfied the witnesses because they could relax and have a cup of tea and a chat rather than sitting in silence in the court room. Had any of them asked if they could sit in the court room I don't think the coroner would have had any grounds to refuse the request in 1888, other than perhaps on grounds of space.

True. I've been a witness. Twice. Massive headache. And I have a car to drive me to court. I can't imagine being invested in the outcome of a process that seemed to me on that day to solely exist for the purpose of making my life harder. Now granted I was desperate to escape to go smoke a cigarette, and these witnesses would not have been so disserviced. But it's still a colossal pain in the ass. And no amount of front row seating is going to make it any less just a horrific drag. Not to mention those courtrooms tended to be absolutely stifling.

[David Orsam]

The way I see it Jon is that most witnesses wouldn't have had the slightest interest in hearing the evidence. They turned up at the start of the inquest, presented themselves to the coroner and were told to sit in a waiting room until they were called. This arrangement satisfied the witnesses because they could relax and have a cup of tea and a chat rather than sitting in silence in the court room. Had any of them asked if they could sit in the court room I don't think the coroner would have had any grounds to refuse the request in 1888, other than perhaps on grounds of space.

The snippet you quote about want of space actually confirms my thinking that there wouldn't have been space for witnesses at the Ripper inquests and I don't see why they would have been given priority. Lawyers and police yes but not witnesses.

In a normal inquest, therefore, with plenty of space, I'm thinking that the witnesses would have been perfectly free to sit in the court room if they so desired but very few would have desired it.

Let me just give you one example. A person is found dead in suspicious circumstances. Their husband/wife/father/mother is a witness at the inquest. Would the coroner really have prevented them from sitting in court to hear the evidence of others until after they gave their own evidence? I don't think so (unless someone had been arrested and their lawyer applied for their exclusion).

[Wickerman]

Excellent find Jon, and hopefully that answers Pierre's question.

I agree with you about lack of space as a possible reason for this arrangement

Hi David.

We also read in the Echo:
"Only a few of the public could be admitted, in consequence of the want of space..."
12 Nov. 1888.

I'm inclined to think the witnesses should have been given priority had there been any space in the courtroom at all - which apparently there was.
So on balance, the fact they were sat outside suggests to me it was the convention.

With regard to police witnesses, you raise a good example though that was a different Coroner, so that raises another question, perhaps whether the witnesses, police or public, sat within or without the court was more the preference of the Coroner?

[GUT]

Though Ben may also have something re Cross at least, coming forward late means less time off work if he was going to miss less time a work than if he came forward earlier.

But I can't see how tha would impact Hutch.

[GUT]

Though Ben may also have something re Cross at least, coming forward late means less time off work if he was going to miss less time a work than if he came forward earlier.

[GUT]

I think Gut was talking about possibly being seen/recognized by other witnesses?

Ah, in which case I agree.

Apologies, GUT (and thanks, Abby!)

Yep, to Abby

No Worries, to Ben.

[Ben]

I think Gut was talking about possibly being seen/recognized by other witnesses?

Ah, in which case I agree.

Apologies, GUT (and thanks, Abby!)

[Abby Normal]

I wouldn't have thought so, GUT.

Unless Hutchinson had an unusually serious aversion to hanging around in court for slightly longer than was convenient, I doubt very much that his three-day delay in presenting his evidence had anything to do with that. Besides, as Monty pointed out, it wasn't necessarily the case that witnesses were obliged to remain in court after their appearance on the stand.

Or have I misread you?

I think Gut was talking about possibly being seen/recognized by other witnesses?

[Ben]

If it was required to a witness, who had given evidence to remain AT Court, either in or nearby, isn't that one hell of an incentive for people like Hutch and Cross to try and avoid being called on till the lat possible moment

I wouldn't have thought so, GUT.

Unless Hutchinson had an unusually serious aversion to hanging around in court for slightly longer than was convenient, I doubt very much that his three-day delay in presenting his evidence had anything to do with that. Besides, as Monty pointed out, it wasn't necessarily the case that witnesses were obliged to remain in court after their appearance on the stand.

Or have I misread you?

[Abby Normal]

I wondered aloud about how this might relate to Hutchinson too GUT.

exactly. if hes lying, embellishing about anything, an inquest, where you have to testify under oath, and where other witnesses are going to be, is the last place you want to be.

[Michael W Richards]

The last exchange between Pierre and David has given rise to a thought.

If it was required to a witness, who had given evidence to remain AT Court, either in or nearby, isn't that one hell of an incentive for people like Hutch and Cross to try and avoid being called on till the lat possible moment, and could go at least part way to explaining what is often seen as suspicious behaviour.

I wondered aloud about how this might relate to Hutchinson too GUT.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374164]

I hesitate to post it because it could be terribly misleading in respect of the position in 1888 but, then again, it might reflect earlier practice.

OK.

Regards, Pierre