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:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Robert St Devil 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Robert St Devil 3 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 3 hours ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Jeff Leahy 3 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - by Herlock Sholmes 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (10 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (2 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (2 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 > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #191  
Old 08-11-2017, 01:04 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
Yeah Baxter.Got it mixed-up.The press took note the inquest stopped abruptly and/or withholding info.It's unclear why the inquest stopped.In my opinion it was because
there were no PC's on the beat.
Given that we have no idea if any PC saw anything of note, as opposed to Phillips who had pages of medical evidence.
It is far more likely, in my opinion, that Macdonald simply did not want some, or all, of the medical evidence made public.
Whether this was at the request of police is another possibility.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 08-11-2017, 03:59 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
That's just your own interpretation of the evidence though Jon. It didn't come from the juries at the inquests. They didn't establish the times of deaths. Nor are those times stated on the death certificates.
David, you did make a point of saying "from the Baxter inquests", or words to that effect.
Does this selection below look like it is my interpretation?

Nicholls.
Llewellyn, who arrived about 4 o'clock said:
"...I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour."

Chapman.
Phillips, who arrived at 6:30 said:
" I should say at least two hours,"

Eddowes.
Brown, who arrived about 2:20 said:
"The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body."

Stride.
Blackwell, who arrived at 1:16 said:
"From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

Kelly.
Phillips ??????????
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 08-11-2017 at 04:06 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 08-11-2017, 04:31 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
true, but this inquest had someone representing the police who the other inquests didn't have, and that was inspector abberline. he states that he is in charge of the case. the coroner asks him if there is anything further that the jury should know, and he responds no. if a dorset street constable knew something, insp abberline would have known it too.
That exchange between Macdonald & Abberline always struck me as odd. Abberline's reply suggests to me he was under the impression the inquest would be adjourned for a further sitting. Otherwise, why offer to communicate with the coroner if something comes to light?

Then Macdonald, abruptly shuts the inquiry down.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 08-12-2017, 01:05 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
David, you did make a point of saying "from the Baxter inquests", or words to that effect.
Does this selection below look like it is my interpretation?

Nicholls.
Llewellyn, who arrived about 4 o'clock said:
"...I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour."

Chapman.
Phillips, who arrived at 6:30 said:
" I should say at least two hours,"

Eddowes.
Brown, who arrived about 2:20 said:
"The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body."

Stride.
Blackwell, who arrived at 1:16 said:
"From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

Kelly.
Phillips ??????????
All you are doing is confusing two things, Jon, namely (1) the requirement of the jury to certify when the deceased came by his death and (2) whether a doctor gave evidence as to his opinion of the time of death.

Yes, of course, in other inquests a doctor opined as to the time of death (and this did not happen in the Kelly inquest) but where is the statutory requirement for him to do so?

Macdonald called all the relevant witnesses. Two witnesses gave evidence about hearing a cry of murder in the night. One witness gave evidence as to seeing Kelly alive in the morning. The doctor was called but neither the coroner nor the jury asked him his opnion as to the time of death. The jury could have asked the question but didn't. All he could have given, though, was an opinion, not direct evidence.

What I am saying is that Macdonald's inquest fulfilled the statutory requirements under the 1887 Act. His jury established when Kelly died: 9th November 1888, as stated on the death certificate.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 08-12-2017, 04:42 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post

What I am saying is that Macdonald's inquest fulfilled the statutory requirements under the 1887 Act. His jury established when Kelly died: 9th November 1888, as stated on the death certificate.
The way I read the requirements in the Act is that the Coroner is expected to produce witnesses who present testimony which will provide evidence to fulfill those stated requirements.

Macdonald knows from experience (being a surgeon himself) that medical opinion can be contested, and that may transpire through police further investigation. However, at this stage it is only necessary to provide evidence which results from the post mortem, and this is where the estimated time of death is given (re: previous examples).
The doctor who is expected to provide this evidence can only do so if the coroner permits him.

This is where I feel Macdonald failed to perform his duty.

There will be cases where an estimated time cannot be given, one example may be Druitt's body floating in the Thames. They may be lucky to pin his death down to an actual day.
Druitt's case was an exception, Kelly's case was not an exception. In fact the very existence of Bond's estimated time of death written two days before the inquest indicates an answer was available.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 08-12-2017, 04:52 AM
DJA DJA is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,304
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
That exchange between Macdonald & Abberline always struck me as odd. Abberline's reply suggests to me he was under the impression the inquest would be adjourned for a further sitting. Otherwise, why offer to communicate with the coroner if something comes to light?

Then Macdonald, abruptly shuts the inquiry down.
The old three card trick.
Both wanted it shut down.

Abberline was at Nichols' inquest.

In fact Abberline was on the case before you could say Jack's your Aunty.

Similar with Cleveland Street Scandal.
__________________
My name is Dave.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 08-12-2017, 06:58 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
The way I read the requirements in the Act is that the Coroner is expected to produce witnesses who present testimony which will provide evidence to fulfill those stated requirements.
Yes but Jon the stated requirement is nothing more than "when" did death occur.

You have quoted yourself from the Act that the jury was to "certify" in writing when death occurred. I've asked you how any of Baxter's juries certified the time of death.

Clearly they didn't. But they did certify the date of death. Thus, QED, "when" in the Act in respect of the Coroner's duty to "inquire" means that the Coroner is only expected to call witnesses pertaining to the date of death.

In any event, Macdonald DID produce all known witnesses at the inquest who could give any evidence pertaining to the time of death. But there was no statutory requirement for him to have done so or for the time of death to be determined at the inquest.

He played it "by the book". You are not showing anything to contradict this other than your own personal opinion.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 08-12-2017, 02:48 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

David.

Have you heard of the Mitchelstown Massacre?

When people die in an incident, essentially all dying around the same time, a single inquest is permitted.
However, when several people die on the same day, but at different times, then individual inquests must be held.
On 9 Sept. 1887, police shot into a crowd of protesters causing the deaths of three men. Separate inquests were held because they all died at different times.

Yet, it must be admitted, their death certificates likely recorded the same day for their deaths.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:07 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
David.

Have you heard of the Mitchelstown Massacre?

When people die in an incident, essentially all dying around the same time, a single inquest is permitted.
However, when several people die on the same day, but at different times, then individual inquests must be held.
On 9 Sept. 1887, police shot into a crowd of protesters causing the deaths of three men. Separate inquests were held because they all died at different times.

Yet, it must be admitted, their death certificates likely recorded the same day for their deaths.
As the Coroners Act of 1887 was not made law until 16 September 1887 and didn't apply to Ireland in any case I fail to see the relevance of deaths in Ireland on 6 September 1887 to this discussion.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 08-12-2017, 05:43 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

All Ireland was under British Law in 1887.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
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 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.