Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jumping to conclusions?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
    As far as the accusations by this journal of Bond using terminology a jury wouldn't understand, this is not evident in the actual Old Bailey transcripts.
    The accusations by the Medical Gazette that Bond used terminology a jury wouldn't understand was relevant to his statements at the "police court" (magistrate court) not at the Old Bailey. What was said at the Magistrates courts by Bond does not appear in the Old Bailey transcripts for the obvious reason that they are not the same court. Even some one with a lack of knowledge of judicial process could understand this by simply reading the article. The Medical Gazette made this point themselves;-

    "We were glad to see a decided improvement in this respect in the trial at the Old Bailey"

    Perhaps they shouldn't have just relied on the Times, who admitted to making one mistake, for their information and source material.
    The point is tautological, if the Times report from the magistrates court contained errors, then the journalist responsible for it had failed to understand what Bond was trying to explain to the court, and if that is the case then what hope did any one else have of understanding it ?

    You can't promote a claim that Bond's evidence was understandable for the lay men at the police court by the usual simple minded ripperological approach of refusing to put the information in the correct context and then attacking the credibility of the press.

    Comment


    • #17
      Hi Pete

      I'm sorry but in this case, because of the detailed nature of the formal apology, we probably can...

      In this period all press accounts do need to be carefully scanned for either undue editing of the text or undue exaggeration of the text...come to think of it, why just this particular period?

      Journalists...word prostitutes...discuss at length!

      All the best

      Dave

      Comment


      • #18
        Hi Dave,

        Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
        I'm sorry but in this case, because of the detailed nature of the formal apology, we probably can...
        probably can... What ?

        The formal apology comes from the Medical Gazette as they recognize that they are in error in not checking their sources. The Times report that the Medical Gazette used as a source contains errors, but the point is this;- were these errors cause by the journalist genuinely misunderstanding Bond or wilfully misreporting Bonds' evidence ?

        Do we have a formal apology by the Times ? (I don't know)

        In this period all press accounts do need to be carefully scanned for either undue editing of the text or undue exaggeration of the text
        Ok, lets randomly (I mean it's not something I've selected to prove a point) compare what Dusty Miller posted earlier in the thread as published in the Daily News (unknown date) with the text from the Old Bailey;-

        THOMAS BOND , F.R.C.S. I live at 50, Parliament Street, Westminster, and am assistant-surgeon to the Westminster Hospital, and lecturer on forensic medicine at the hospital—on the 16th September last I saw the remains of this body at the dead house—Mr. Larkin was present—the body was that of a female of short stature, about 5 feet in height, of slender make, limbs, and body; I thought she was from twenty to twenty-five years of age, and that the body had been dead many months; she might certainly have been dead as long as twelve months-—the hands were slender and covered with a greasy substance; the skin underneath was dry and shrunken; the feet were in the same condition—I think if there had been any deep furrow from wearing a wedding ring I should have found it, I looked to find it and did not notice one; I do not think I could have found a slight furrow—the the hand was a very slight one, the fingers were very thin—a wedding ring would obviously make a deeper furrow on a fat hand than on a thin one—I do not know whether the furrow would remain if the ring was discontinued for a time—the feet were slender and the skin dried, and in the same condition as the hands—I have seen these boots and am distinctly of opinion that they could have been worn by the deceased......<Old bailey online>
        Most of the start is exactly the same, so lets compare two sections that actually differ and see by what degree;-

        ....The hands were slender and covered with a greasy substance. The skin underneath was dry and shrunken. The feet were in the same condition. As to the wedding-ring, I think that if there had been a very deep furrow during life I should have found it.
        The Lord Chief Justice - Would a ring worn upon the finger make a more or less of a furrow according as a hand was full or thin one
        If the ring were discontinued some time would the furrow still remain? I cannot say
        Examination continued - These boots (produced)
        <Daily News (unknown date)>
        Now compare with the same section from the Old Bailey;-
        -—the hands were slender and covered with a greasy substance; the skin underneath was dry and shrunken; the feet were in the same condition—I think if there had been any deep furrow from wearing a wedding ring I should have found it, I looked to find it and did not notice one; I do not think I could have found a slight furrow—the the hand was a very slight one, the fingers were very thin—a wedding ring would obviously make a deeper furrow on a fat hand than on a thin one—I do not know whether the furrow would remain if the ring was discontinued for a time—the feet were slender and the skin dried, and in the same condition as the hands—I have seen these boots and am distinctly of opinion that they could have been worn by the deceased—<Old bailey online>
        For the legal profession it's the same information. For ripperologists it's evidence of "undue editing of the text or undue exaggeration of the text"

        ...come to think of it, why just this particular period?
        That's due to the fact that 1877 lies between the formalising of Court reporting in the Judicature acts of 1873/75 and the Newspaper libel amendment act 1881 which gave newspaper reporting of all public meetings 'privilege' in return for accuracy. A bargain offer that no commercially sane newspaper owner would turn his back on.

        Journalists...word prostitutes...discuss at length!
        No need to think! just repeat what you've already been told !

        All the best
        Ditto

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mr. Lucky View Post
          The accusations by the Medical Gazette that Bond used terminology a jury wouldn't understand was relevant to his statements at the "police court" (magistrate court) not at the Old Bailey. What was said at the Magistrates courts by Bond does not appear in the Old Bailey transcripts for the obvious reason that they are not the same court. Even some one with a lack of knowledge of judicial process could understand this by simply reading the article. The Medical Gazette made this point themselves;-

          "We were glad to see a decided improvement in this respect in the trial at the Old Bailey"



          The point is tautological, if the Times report from the magistrates court contained errors, then the journalist responsible for it had failed to understand what Bond was trying to explain to the court, and if that is the case then what hope did any one else have of understanding it ?

          You can't promote a claim that Bond's evidence was understandable for the lay men at the police court by the usual simple minded ripperological approach of refusing to put the information in the correct context and then attacking the credibility of the press.
          This is a fair and interesting point, Pete.
          The Times reports of the inquest are quite detailed and it does appear from those that Bond did use a lot of medical language, specifically when responding to Mr Poland . However, there are also a couple of points at which Bond does appear to have defined certain medical terms as he went along and this is indicated in the newspaper reports but there aren't many of these descriptions. It is not difficult to see how someone reading The Times coverage would conclude that Bond's use of all the medical language would be confusing to a jury but I wonder how much description was just omitted by the Times reporter ?-as suggested by the apology, the way I read it.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
            And, no, he did not testify as you say. However, he did make MacDonald's job of a quick inquest easier--in my humble opinion. Wonder how things would have shaken out with Baxter at the controls?
            Sorry, Lynn, but I don't see the connection between Bond and MacDonald. It was Phillips who reportedly went back to Miller's with MacDonald and he is the physician of record. You know Gordon Brown was at the scene and the post mortem as well. Phillips assisted him at the Eddowes PM but was not called to testify at the inquest.

            I think a little much is being read into this.

            It certainly would have been more interesting for us if Baxter had presided at the Kelly inquest, but I doubt they were concerned about that at the time. Baxter would likely have had many more jurors available and there wouldn't have been as much controversy over jurisdiction by the jurors I would think.
            Best Wishes,
            Cris Malone
            ______________________________________________
            "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

            Comment


            • #21
              facile

              Hello Cris. Thanks.

              I'll grant that. I think it has always rankled that Sir Robert had asked him to give an opinion--one which I consider facile, given his late entrance into the case.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                This is a fair and interesting point, Pete.
                The Times reports of the inquest are quite detailed and it does appear from those that Bond did use a lot of medical language, specifically when responding to Mr Poland . However, there are also a couple of points at which Bond does appear to have defined certain medical terms as he went along and this is indicated in the newspaper reports but there aren't many of these descriptions. It is not difficult to see how someone reading The Times coverage would conclude that Bond's use of all the medical language would be confusing to a jury but I wonder how much description was just omitted by the Times reporter ?-as suggested by the apology, the way I read it.
                Hi Debs

                I have to point out that I know I'm largely just doing the devils advocate bit, It pretty clear that the Times reporter was in error, but it's the assumption that this was willful and therefore tells us something fundamental about the nature of court-reporting and the press in general that I object to.

                Additionally, there appears to be some confusion regarding whether the evidence given by Bond was at the inquest, police court or trial.

                The Times reports of the inquest are quite detailed and it does appear from those that Bond did use a lot of medical language, specifically when responding to Mr Poland
                - If Bond is responding to Mr Poland, surely that's at trial not at the inquest ?

                It is not difficult to see how someone reading The Times coverage would conclude that Bond's use of all the medical language would be confusing to a jury but I wonder how much description was just omitted by the Times reporter ?-as suggested by the apology, the way I read it.
                Yes I think you're right, more seriously they (the Medical Gazette) also accuse the Times reporter of adding words, which I would have thought would force the Times to print a retraction of some kind if that were true.

                Additionally, earlier I mentioned the " Newspaper libel amendment act 1881 " this should be the "Newspaper libel and registration act 1881" the "Newspaper libel amendment act" was from 1888. Apologies for any confusion.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The bottom line is the Medical Gazette used one flawed source to offer equally flawed conclusions about a medico's testimony during the legal proceedings of a high profile case. All, of which, could create an unfounded bias from the historical perspective if further dispelling information was not researched and added to the mix.
                  Best Wishes,
                  Cris Malone
                  ______________________________________________
                  "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mr. Lucky View Post
                    Hi Debs

                    I have to point out that I know I'm largely just doing the devils advocate bit, It pretty clear that the Times reporter was in error, but it's the assumption that this was willful and therefore tells us something fundamental about the nature of court-reporting and the press in general that I object to.

                    Additionally, there appears to be some confusion regarding whether the evidence given by Bond was at the inquest, police court or trial.

                    - If Bond is responding to Mr Poland, surely that's at trial not at the inquest ?

                    Yes I think you're right, more seriously they (the Medical Gazette) also accuse the Times reporter of adding words, which I would have thought would force the Times to print a retraction of some kind if that were true.

                    Additionally, earlier I mentioned the " Newspaper libel amendment act 1881 " this should be the "Newspaper libel and registration act 1881" the "Newspaper libel amendment act" was from 1888. Apologies for any confusion.
                    Thanks. Yes, my mistake, Pete, it was at the Southwark police court magisterial hearing and not the inquest as I said. I believe it was the police court evidence which the author of the Medical Gazette was complaining about though-so makes no difference.
                    I think it is still a perfect example someone rushing into making a conclusion about someone else (in this case Bond, his conclusions, language and methods used in court) from a single newspaper source-The Times. To me, he pretty much accuses Bond of being up his own behind! But the fault was his for making conclusions based on one source-jumping to conclusions?..

                    I thought it would be interesting to post the criticism first only, that slamming Bond, and see how many would agree with the Medical Gazette author -based on not much evidence.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      It certainly would have been more interesting for us if Baxter had presided at the Kelly inquest, but I doubt they were concerned about that at the time. Baxter would likely have had many more jurors available and there wouldn't have been as much controversy over jurisdiction by the jurors I would think.
                      -Cris Malone-

                      Cris....I could envision the inquest lasting up to a week, if Baxter was in charge....and I wish he had been.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Hi Debs

                        Wow - an action was brought by a Mr M' Wade against Mr Goodlake, as the printer and publisher of the Times in 1881, in respect of a libel contained in certain legal proceedings in the Queens Bench, which was published in that paper on the 6th December 1878.

                        But, rather than anything to do with the Wainwright trial, this libel was in respect to a summary of a case from a man making an application at Bow Street against his wife, his wife’s mother, and their solicitor for conspiracy, fraud and perjury !!

                        The jury found for the defendant before the journalist took the stand.
                        Last edited by Mr. Lucky; April 15, 2014, 06:36 PM. Reason: sp

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
                          The bottom line is the Medical Gazette used one flawed source to offer equally flawed conclusions about a medico's testimony during the legal proceedings of a high profile case.
                          "one flawed source", that's still one more source than you've got for your claims that Schwartz' non-appearance at the Stride inquest is some kind of "enigma" !

                          All, of which, could create an unfounded bias from the historical perspective if further dispelling information was not researched and added to the mix
                          Is all this melodrama really necessary !, the medical gazette retracted their allegation, the idea that this would " create an unfound bias from the historical perspective" is simply nonsense. This is nothing to do with "historical perspective" and "further dispelling" research. They printed a retraction at the time.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mr. Lucky View Post
                            Is all this melodrama really necessary !, the medical gazette retracted their allegation, the idea that this would " create an unfound bias from the historical perspective" is simply nonsense. This is nothing to do with "historical perspective" and "further dispelling" research. They printed a retraction at the time.
                            Hi Mr Lucky,

                            You can see what Cris is saying, though? If one wasn't aware of the retraction, then one might interpret the original criticisms incorrectly - and, if one were to do that, one might well interpret it, quite improperly, in line with one's existing preconceptions. That, surely, is the moral of the story? Isn't it?

                            Regards,

                            Mark
                            I bet your Ripper feels better now.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Which was, in part at least, what I was attempting to say in post #17

                              You most certainly CAN claim in this case that Bond's evidence WAS understandable for the lay men at the police court because he both stated the nature of the medical evidence technically, and then, (specifically by admission of the apology), explained it again in laymans terms...because, (in this case at least), the Times abbreviated the evidence given, (for whatever reason), the Medical Times and Gazette jumped to a false conclusion and printed the item Debs quoted, which they then subsequently retracted...

                              All the best

                              Dave

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mr. Lucky View Post
                                Hi Debs

                                Wow - an action was brought by a Mr M' Wade against Mr Goodlake, as the printer and publisher of the Times in 1881, in respect of a libel contained in certain legal proceedings in the Queens Bench, which was published in that paper on the 6th December 1878.

                                But, rather than anything to do with the Wainwright trial, this libel was in respect to a summary of a case from a man making an application at Bow Street against his wife, his wife’s mother, and their solicitor for conspiracy, fraud and perjury !!

                                The jury found for the defendant before the journalist took the stand.
                                Just to clarify, re - the Libel case against the Times' Court reporter
                                What the journalist from the Times had stated in his report from the Bow Street Magistrates Court on the 6th December 1878 was false, it wouldn't have made it to a criminal trial otherwise, but the action failed as the plaintiff couldn't prove that this libel was done with malice. This case appears to be of some importance, the Attorney-General addressed the jury, and after the verdict the judge certified for a special jury. The reporter in this case had an experience of 30 years, during 20 of which he had reported law cases in the Supreme Court for the Times.

                                So we have the error riddled report in the Times from the magistrates court/inquest/trial that the Medical Gazette used as a source, and we have the report that instigated this criminal libel case, both about the same time, late 1878.

                                Were they the same reporter ? - very likely I would have thought - So I wonder what happened ?

                                Also, prior to 1881 newspaper reports (in fact all reports) of court proceedings (but not all public meetings) had privilege at common law, but this would give no protection from vexatious writs which seems at least partially the reason for the 1881 Act. I found a article that indicated that this action (by M'Wade against the Times) was alluded to as an example of such (clearly it wasn't). It would be interesting to find out what the special jury had to say, it may have had some influence on the Act passed later that year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X