Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 6 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 7 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 26 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Scott Nelson 29 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Fisherman 34 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Joshua Rogan 34 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (39 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (36 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (16 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (1 posts)
General Discussion: A broken down masher - (1 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Christie Case - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Social Chat > Other Mysteries > A6 Murders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-15-2017, 11:32 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 936
Default Mrs Dinwoodie

The Daily Telegraph's report of Mrs D's evidence ...
Attached Images
    
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-16-2017, 02:49 AM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 936
Default Re-arranging the clippings

The first clip (in the previous post) is from the introduction of the report, which is why I put it first. However if I move it over to the right the clippings should be easier to read ...
Attached Images
    
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-16-2017, 11:48 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 508
Default

Thanks, Nick.

Pretty leading questions from Swanwick in his cross-examination of Mrs D, I thought.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-16-2017, 02:06 PM
Spitfire Spitfire is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Thanks, Nick.

Pretty leading questions from Swanwick in his cross-examination of Mrs D, I thought.

Best regards,

OneRound

Indeed they are leading questions, but as Mrs Dinwoodie was the defence's witness the prosecution could ask them. The rule against leading questions only applies to the party calling the witness.

"The rule against ‘leading’ is simply that you must not ask your own witness questions about matters which are in dispute in such a way that you suggest the answer you want your witness to give."

Leading questions
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-17-2017, 12:54 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 508
Default

Hi Spitfire,

Good points and thanks for the attachment.

I don't and can't dispute what you say. I suppose I just find it hard to regard Mrs D as (purely) a defence witness given her insistence at Swanwick's prompting that ''this conversation took place on the Monday'' which undermined Hanratty's claim and presumably contributed to the guilty verdict.

There again, Sherrard should have been savvy enough to spot what was likely to happen when he called Mrs D in the first place. Possibly his client left him with no choice.

Best regards,

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-17-2017, 01:37 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRound View Post
Thanks, Nick.

Pretty leading questions from Swanwick in his cross-examination of Mrs D, I thought.

Best regards,

OneRound
Ummmm not only are you allowed to lead in cross examination, you should.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-17-2017, 06:56 AM
OneRound OneRound is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Ummmm not only are you allowed to lead in cross examination, you should.
GUT - thank you for taking the time and trouble to respond even though your reply comes across as ungracious and unhelpful. A shame you didn't see and/or follow my second post.

OneRound
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-17-2017, 02:11 PM
NickB NickB is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 936
Default

I think Sherrard was savvy enough to know what Mrs D was likely to say because Kleinman had interviewed her.

1. You will notice Sherrard refers to the visitor as “the chap whose picture that resembled” rather than Hanratty. So Swanwick is repeating the phrase already used when he asks: “You thought it resembled the chap who had come into the shop, and [that] is as far as you could go?”

2. In answer to Sherrard’s question “Can you say now with certainty ...?” she replies “The Monday.” So again Swanwick is simply referring to what she has already said when he asks if she is certain the conversation took place on the Monday.

Mrs D was certain it was the Monday because:
(a) Barbara was serving with her on Monday;
(b) Cowley’s brother was serving with her on Tuesday.

Foot and Woffinden report (a) because they believe they can muddy the waters by talking about Barbara’s re-appearance with Linda on Tuesday. But they conceal (b).

Indeed they deliberately mislead by saying that (a) was:
- “the one criterion by which Mrs Dinwoodie and Barbara Ford had been able to fix the Monday rather than the Tuesday.” (Foot)
- “the only reason Mrs Dinwoodie had for placing the incident on the Monday rather than the Tuesday.” (Woffinden)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-18-2017, 03:59 AM
Derrick Derrick is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 591
Default

That leaves us with the quandary over Hanratty mentioning asking for Tarleton Road in a sweetshop in Scotland Road on the Tuesday and Mrs Dinwoodie corroborating a man asking for the non-existent Tarleton Road and resembling Hanratty.

Hanratty was plainly in London all of the previous day (Monday 21st) as proved by the Crown.

I don't believe that Hanratty sought to buy an alibi as ludicrously put forward by the prosecution.

I believe Mrs Dinwoodie was mistaken as to the correct day; she became ill that Tuesday evening.

Del
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-18-2017, 04:09 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derrick View Post
That leaves us with the quandary over Hanratty mentioning asking for Tarleton Road in a sweetshop in Scotland Road on the Tuesday and Mrs Dinwoodie corroborating a man asking for the non-existent Tarleton Road and resembling Hanratty.

Hanratty was plainly in London all of the previous day (Monday 21st) as proved by the Crown.

I don't believe that Hanratty sought to buy an alibi as ludicrously put forward by the prosecution.

I believe Mrs Dinwoodie was mistaken as to the correct day; she became ill that Tuesday evening.

Del
But her evidence was clear it could only have been the Monday if you believe her, and if not it's no alibi anyway.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.