|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Inquest Juries
Casebook Message Boards: Witnesses: General Discussion:
Inquest Juries
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 01:51 pm |        | Studying a copy of the Catherine Eddowes inquest papers, I've just spotted an interesting little detail which raises some questions…
Twenty-five persons are listed as having been summoned to appear as jurors. The names of seventeen of these are checked off and the number '17' written below the list. Overleaf, the same seventeen names, along with Coroner Langham, have signed the Inquisition.
What became of the other eight people? It would appear from this that they simply didn’t attend. Does somebody know what the procedures were for inquest juries please? (I know there was a minimum property qualification for those called to serve).
The reason this is of particular interest is that among the eight men who don’t appear to have served is one Joseph Abraham Britton. There must be a very strong chance indeed that this is the Joseph A. Britton of 13 Houndsditch who ran a picture frame business in the vicinity. He was also the father of S. J. Britton, the Secretary of the Imperial Club.
Regards, V. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 04:48 pm | | Viper,
Do you know how similar the Imperial Club was to the International Workingmen's Association? I've basically considered the Imperial Club to have been a kind of ordinary watering hole for Jewish businessmen, but considering it has a Secretary, as you say above, it could have been a kind of Jewish social or political organization as well. If so, a connection with the Berner Street crime would seem more likely. We all much appreciate your excellent analyses.
David |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 06:04 pm | | David,
We used to have a board called "Imperial Club and related issues". I posted some research findings to it about a year back, but unfortunately that board has been lost to the hacker. The information about the IC is still here on my PC, so will e-mail you a copy of it some time.
Briefly, the International Working Men's Educational Club was strongly political, it being basically a Socialist club for working men. It even printed its own radical newspaper on the premises. The Club was, of course, overwhelmingly Jewish in its membership, though it was open to all working men who professed socialism. The authorities regarded the Club with great suspicion, (it was sometimes referred to as the 'Anarchists Club'). The disturbance of March 1889, the result of which saw the club's steward Diemschutz sent to prison is described in the A-Z. In November 1892 a London County Council inspector had the Berner St. premises declared 'dangerous' (not sure why, possibly fire?) and they were closed down. There was a suspicion that the authorities had purposely engineered this action. The Club proved resiliant though, relocating the Arbeter Fraint press to Aldgate and holding meetings in a pub until they secured another building in 1894.
The Imperial Club would have been a very different beast. From the limited evidence published about it to date it seems to have been the kind of club where moderately affluent local tradesmen would meet. They'd probably use it to 'network' as much as to socialize. We know that Lawende had a business address in the City of London; that Levy ran a butcher's business for a number of years and that S. J. Britton was from a family of successful shopkeepers. As such it seems highly unlikely that the Club had any Socialist affiliations. If the members we know of were typical, they were probably socially aspiring conservative types (with a small 'c').
As to the IC having exclusively or even predominantly Jewish membership, that we don't know for certain. The locality, Aldgate, had a very long-standing Jewish population, (dating from the 1650s when the area was allocated for Jewish settlement after Cromwell readmitted them to England), and hundreds of Jews did run small businesses in the area. For that reason alone we should expect them to be well represented at the Imperial.
Right, just before we lose the thread here a quick reminder :-)
Anybody out there know how these coroner's inquest juries worked?
Regards, V. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 27 September 2000 - 06:14 pm | | Viper
I also noticed the check marks but just assumed that these were the only one's accepted for duty that day.
When I was called for jury duty (1978) more people were in the waiting room (those who had been summoned) than were picked for duty on the case I was on.
In my case the accused had to accept or reject each member of the jury, so thats why they summon more than they need. But as this was a hearing (Eddowes), and no accused was present, maybe the proceedure was different.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 28 September 2000 - 04:22 am | | Also, any potential juror who is found to be acquainted with anyone connected with the case is usually automatically excluded from serving (I'm sorry, I don't know if this applies with inquest juries). So this may have been the case with Joseph Britton, if he knew the three witnesses, Lawende, Levy and Harris. When my husband was summoned for jury service, he and the guy in charge of taking the jurors into the courtroom (the usher?) recognised each other as having worked together at one time, so he couldn't serve.
Love,
Caz |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 30 September 2000 - 03:11 pm | | | Thanks Jon and Caz for that. It all sounds plausible, especially the bit about declaring an interest if the witnesses were known to a potential juryman. Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 30 September 2000 - 04:34 pm | | Hello Viper, Caz, Jon, David, et al.:
Indeed, I would imagine in 1888 people were exempted from duty on a jury much as they are today, and this would explain the check marks. Caz, when your husband recognized the guy in charge of taking the jurors into the courtroom, did they by any chance have a funny handshake? :-)
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 01 October 2000 - 05:10 am | | Hi Chris,
God, I do hope not. :-)
But I can imagine, both having worked together for British Gas, that the long lunch breaks spent down the pub probably made for shaky hands all round...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 01 October 2000 - 11:57 am | | I'm afraid, Viper, I can't help on inquest jury procedures, but since the subject has been raised, I have a question of my own:
At the conclusion of the Eddowes inquest, the "Telegraph" reported that the jury "presented their fees" to Annie Phillips, Kate's daughter. But what does this mean? Did they present her with a bill for services rendered, or did they - touched by the death of her mother - give Phillips the small monies they made for being on the jury? The former seems more likely to me, but I do not know, and neither Alex Chisholm or SPE (both expert researchers whom I value highly) are certain as to what "presented their fees" means. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
And, Viper, if you've any further information on the Imperial Club, I'd be most grateful if you'd share it with me; I can use it in my own current researches.
As ever,
CMD |
Author: Grey Hunter
Sunday, 01 October 2000 - 12:20 pm | | CMD,
There is no way that Annie Phillips would be obliged to pay anyone's fees, and I think that you are correct in your assumption that the jury members felt sorry for her and donated to her the fees they had received for performing jury service.
Selection of a coroner's jury was not the same as for a trial, and the selection was made by the coroner himself from a number of eligible persons presented for jury service. The coroner, therefore, reserved the right to select the jurors himself, and to object to any person should he wish to. This happened in the case of the Coles' inquest where Wynne Baxter objected to Albert Bachert, who wished to serve on the jury, and was rejected by Wynne Baxter. This caused a dispute between the two and Bachert was well and truly put in his place by the coroner who had absolute power in these cases. (See page 97 of The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper)
I have Keith Skinner here with me and he asks me to pass on his regards to you.
Best Wishes |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 01 October 2000 - 01:52 pm | | Hi Grey Hunter:
Thanks for your input and say hello to Keith for me. Tell him that Ripper Notes Vol. 2, No. 2 is still on the way. Various and sundry activities have kept me tied up but I hope to finalize the issue shortly. I agree that it is very likely that the members of the jury decided to donate to Annie Phillips the fees they had received for serving on the jury at the coroner's inquest on her mother.
Chris George |
Author: Keith Rogan
Sunday, 01 October 2000 - 03:42 pm | | Hi all,
I don't wish to start a new thread and since my question is (vaguely) associated with he inquest...
I have not seen the actual post-mortem reports (except for the rather brief one on Kelly here in Casebook), but in the inquests, the surgeons are not asked about sexual activity, semen in or on the body, etc.
I can only assume that in Victorian times this type of testimony was not considered proper for a public inquest.
In the Kelly post-mortem, there is no mention of this either.
Has anyone come across any evidence that JtR did or did not have sex with his victims? I think this knowledge is relevant to a number of issues surrounding the case and if anyone can point me to some answers, I'd appreciate it. |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 01 October 2000 - 07:38 pm | | Shades of Yazoo.
The request by CMD to Viper asking him to share information about the Imperial club with him only, presumably by e-mail, does not, I believe, belong in this public posting area. What we discuss here is for sharing freely amongst ouselves. It is crass to speak of limiting the discussion in front of the rest of us. I suppose CMD will now wish to set up his own forum web site, just for himself and his friends, as Yazoo once did.
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 01 October 2000 - 09:37 pm | | Grey Hunter -
Many thanks for your comments. It struck me as so odd, this one time that "presented their fees" was mentioned, that I immediately thought some impressive act of generosity had touched the jury. But then, my cynical nature returned and - having grown up on Dickens - I thought perhaps in a spirit of cold calculation, the surviving member of the Eddowes family was perforce made to compensate the jury for their lost wages. I appreciate your thoughts, and will accept your interpretation.
Please send my best wishes to Keith Skinner as well.
Keith Rogan -
Probably the best-known mention of sexual activity in connection with the canonical victims is Dr Gordon Brown's post-mortem report on Eddowes, wherein he states "There were no indications of connexion." I am afraid I cannot say what might and might not have been considered proper to mention in front of an inquest jury (though remember the room being cleared of women and children during the Chapman inquest), but suspect that such a disgusting bit of information would not have been made public. I imagine it might have been mentioned in private post-mortem notes, in police papers and on the qui vive among investigators. However, there are researchers much more familiar than I with such matters, and I shall leave them to address you more fully.
David -
I am baffled by the completely gratuitous insult in your last post, and can only attribute it to a temporary lack of good manners on your part. My reason for asking Viper for a copy of his Imperial Club research is because I do not have the capability to select certain areas of the Casebook and print them out, neither do I wish to bore the users of this site by asking him to repeat material that has already been posted (and, in some cases, lost because of hacking), nor do I care to incur expense, use up time and give myself writers' cramp by copying down everything written here. As well, my actions are in the nature of sharing information among students of the case, much as I provided you with my thoughts on the Lusk Kidney before they were published.
In any event, to forestall paranoia on your part, I shall even tell you why I want the material. I am working on a manuscript which annotates the "Daily Telegraph" news stories during the period of the murders. In the course of an early report on Eddowes, a "nearby club" is mentioned, and as the presumption is that this is the Imperial Club, I would like to have a copy of Viper's research to hand so that I may inform my readers briefly about the club, giving Viper full source credit. Is there anything else about my actions you would like to criticise, or have you done for the nonce?
With apologies to the patient readers for this intrusion of personalities,
As ever,
CMD |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 09:57 am | | David surely there are any number of reasons to share information privately.
I don't see that placing a request here is obtrusive.
I would merely hope that such requests do lead to something positive coming back to the boards.
Keith - although aware of its usefulness the doctors don't appear able to state beyond the presence of semen. There are no comments for instance as to rape - (bruising etc.)
The actual post mortem reports are lost (I believe) & we only have the press reports of the inquest medical evidence.
John |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 08:35 pm | | John
Newspaper reports of the various inquests are still available, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, for instance.
Inquests are available here:
http://www.casebook-productions.org/explore/inquests.htm
Only two actual inquest records are still extant, that is those of Eddowes & Kelly. And when you read them you realize that even they only give a summary, not always verbatim. Some news reports have more content than the offical records.
Regards, Jon |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 07:25 am | | Thanks Jon
I do stand corrected. I wasn't counting Kelly which Keith was aware of & overlooked Eddowes.
The frustrating fact is that precise evidence is lacking.
Back to more relevant matters ... the Jurors constantly surprise me by asking questions & abusing the police & government. When did Jury's get stopped from asking their own questions & giving evidence. Seems to me our legal system could get a whole lot more interesting if the Jury's opinion of each witness could be put to him in the Box!
Cheers John |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 07 October 2000 - 08:29 am | | Correct John
Precise evidence IS surely lacking.
I think the Jurors must only speak when spoken to, and are only allowed to give opinions through a Foreman (one appointed Juror).
But Stewart, if he is still with us, will be able to expand on that question.
I'm not sure the legal system is interested in making the system 'more interesting' :-) they would sooner have more control, and get the occation overwith as expeditiously as possible.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 09 October 2000 - 09:31 am | | Jury members can pass written messages and questions to the judge via their foreman. I know of one who cheekily wrote a note asking for a window to be closed because there was a bit of a draught. Luckily for him the judge agreed and the window was closed. :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 07:50 am | | Just a quick note to assure anyone interested the Jurors at the JTR inquests did do the things I describe above & except at Kelly's inquest their complaints , statements & questions were heeded & respected by the Judge.
The system seems less agreeable these days!
;-)
John |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 01:27 pm | | A quick update which sheds a bit more light on these inquest juries. At the end of Annie Chapman's inquest, after the jury had returned its inevitable verdict of 'wilful murder against some person or persons unknown', the following exchange was reported in the Eastern Poste of 29th September:-
The Foreman: ...We have one request to make. Having sat here for five days the majority of the jury wish to be exempted from attending any other inquests for at least two years.
The Coroner: We will endeavour to meet your wishes; but if there is any other important case — though I hope there won't be — I am sure you won't object to serving. The number of constant residents in Whitechapel is very limited, and the rule is that each shall serve if necessary once in three months.
An enlightening peep into the burden which had to be carried by the relatively small number of stable, moderately prosperous householders of that district.
Regards, V. |
Author: alex chisholm
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 10:26 pm | | Further to Viper’s post, the following from Lloyds Weekly Newspaper, Sunday 30 September 1888, shows it was not just jury members who thought they were getting a rough deal.
“THE CORONER AND WITNESSES’ FEES.
There is great indignation at the East-end over the shabby treatment of witnesses. On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:
N.B. – Bring this summons with you. All fees and expenses are required by the Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1, to be advanced and paid by the coroner immediately after the termination of the inquest to such witnesses as the coroner may think fit to allow.
Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd’s, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day’s work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day. John Richardson lost four days’ work, and he was paid for three days one shilling each day. Cadosh came up from Enfield, and was paid 3s. for his three days’ attendance. The coroner for some time demurred to allowing him his railway fares, but eventually did so, but his loss was 1l. 8s. 9d. John Davis, who discovered the body, lost two days, and was paid 2s., Mrs Long lost two days, and she was paid 2s. Other witnesses told the same story of what they naturally consider very unjust treatment.”
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 04:29 pm | | Does this give us a whole separate agenda for witnesses ? ... to me it sounds like money could be made as a witness?
At a higher right than normal pay?
Cheers John |
|
|
|
|
