A Theory -The access to Mary Kelly

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks. Not a problem.

My thinking on Blotchy is like my thinking on Astrakan--since he is merely a description of another, so is Blotchy.

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,

Interesting.

Any idea why Cox would be describing Red Jim McDermott?

Even under oath?

Thanks,

Velma

[lynn cates]

suggestions

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Don't know. Sounds like she and Hutch were fed the descriptions. Why? I am open to suggestions.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

If the coroner had intended to close on the 12th, obviously Phillips would have been notified to attend so cause of death could be established.

Dave

Hi Dave.
I'd like to get your opinion on something. A few thoughts go through my mind about this brief inquest and the fact no time of death was established.

We are aware that Macdonald, Bond and Phillips were investigating Millers Court over the weekend, should we consider that between them they discussed the case in any detail?

Also, over the weekend, Dr. Bond in collaboration with Dr. Phillips, penned a report for Warren where he provides an estimate of the time of death. Somewhere around 1:00-2:00 am Friday morning.
Given they were all professionals from the same calling, do you think it likely that Macdonald new this estimated time of death from Dr. Bond before the Inquest was opened on the Monday?

I'm inclined to think "yes" to both questions, which leaves me wondering why Macdonald did not allow the Inquest to publicly arrive at this result on Monday.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Don't know. Sounds like she and Hutch were fed the descriptions. Why? I am open to suggestions.

Cheers.
LC

Exactly, Lynn.

Why would anyone feed descriptions to witnesses? As a neighbor, Cox, was probably sure to be interviewed. So, what would be the timing on feeding her the description.

And why not get another witness as well instead of having to have a man insert himself into the case after the inquest?

I'm not sure I see any reason for this.

Velma

[lynn cates]

coincidence

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Nothing solid. Still, hard to attribute to coincidence.

Cheers.
LC

[Dave O]

Hi Jon,

I hope you've been keeping well. We don't know but I agree with you that probably the time of death was discussed, it's reasonable to think so. If not at Miller's Court then possibly at the mortuary. Macdonald did not accompany the jury to view the body on the 12th, which means that he had already fulfilled his statutory obligation to see it before that. We don't know when, but I suspect that it on the 10th, the same day he visited Miller's Court, and this would've been very early in the morning or perhaps late afternoon or after, as he had inquests that day. I also think it's reasonable to suppose that he was in the company of Dr. Phillips when he did go, and it would be very surprising if he hadn't discussed the case with him. I think you're right that Macdonald knew what Phillips knew.

As to why they didn't go into the time for the jury, keep in mind that this inquest is broken and that is why it was brief compared to the others (imo). I suspect that Macdonald still assumed at the point Phillips was there that they'd adjourn for further medical evidence, which is what the press reports indicate. Before Phillips sent his note, my impression of the Kelly inquest is that the idea was proceed along the lines of Annie Chapman's inquest with no medical evidence the first day. And at the Kelly inquest, they're on their eighth witness by the time Phillips arrived to testify.

Eight might not sound like much, but my impression is that it's a pretty substantial number for an inquest jury to hear in a single sitting. I think it's a lot, right up there with the busiest days of the other inquests, more than what most of them opened with, and I know from looking at Macdonald's earlier records that it was a lot for him. Perhaps this is why Macdonald decided to confine Phillips' testimony, Macdonald's assumption being that they'd get to the rest next time.

But it wasn't until after Phillips concluded his testimony and gave cause of death that they broke for a quick lunch, which is when that story of jury interference came to Macdonald's attention (which was denied, but Macdonald could hardly have forgotten how the inquest began). I think that this is where Macdonald shifted his attitude towards adjournment, what the whole thing hung upon.

I think we're talking about an inquest that broke because Macdonald tasked Shoreditch jurors with investigating a Spitalfields death. Not broken by design, broken because they wanted that mortuary up there and it came back to bite that inquest. That's my opinion, which I think many people disagree with.

Best,
Dave

[Roy Corduroy]

I think we're talking about an inquest that broke because Macdonald tasked Shoreditch jurors with investigating a Spitalfields death. Not broken by design, broken because they wanted that mortuary up there and it came back to bite that inquest. That's my opinion, which I think many people disagree with.

I don't disagree with you Dave. But when you say broken, in what sense do you mean?

Roy

[Dave O]

Hi Roy,

Well, that's two of us I say it's broken because I think the intention to adjourn was there, but then they didn't do it.

It's technically satisfactory. They determined, so far as the evidence was available, who, when, where, and how, and if you read the press accounts with an eye for the interactions between the coroner and jury, you see Macdonald had a regard for the jury's access to the evidence.

But historically, it's a different story. It's all very well to note that it was the jury who closed the inquest, that they had access to evidence, but there was a real need to adjourn. Medical evidence was lost because they didn't.

It's broken because the North East district was misaligned, Spitalfields didn't have a mortuary, and the inquest wasn't localized in the way inquests usually were. It's all right to hear Annie Chapman in Whitechapel. Whitechapel was associated with Spitalfields, but Shoreditch didn't have the same association.

It's broken because some jurors questioned their right to hear evidence. This wasn't Macdonald's fault.

But it's also broken because Macdonald proceeded without a sufficient amount of jurors to hear an uber-sensational case, enough jurors that could overcome any kind of weirdness that these kinds of cases tend to encounter. He started with 15, lost 1 almost immediately, and had 14 left with 2 or 3 of those complaining about jurisdiction. To adjourn, he needed to be confident that 12 would return or else they couldn't continue. This is why juries are maxed out in well publicized cases. You can penalize absent jurors all you want, but that won't preserve your proceedings.

While it had been Macdonald's previous experience that he could (and did) adjourn with 14 or 15 jurors, those weren't Mary Kelly-type cases, and they weren't cases where the inquests were taken out of the parishes where the death occurred. It's an unusual case, Macdonald was aware that it was unusual, and should have padded his jury with extra men. It can be argued that this is hindsight, but I think a coroner, or any judge, should anticipate these kinds of problems. I don't know if he was particularly sensitive to people people being taken away from their work with no compensation (jurors weren't paid in Middlesex at this time), but you need to make sure you can adjourn if you need to.

There are defects in the inquisition. The depositions aren't signed (which may indicate they're copies, I'm not sure). Macdonald's telling the jury that all they needed to do was establish the cause of death was dangerous advice, although I'd point out that's not what the inquest was limited to.

Dave

[Roy Corduroy]

I agree that it was broken because of the jurisdictional issue, which raised its ugly head early on. But who knows, adding more jurors up front, as you suggest he should have done, might have only put more malcontented men on the jury.

I think MacDonald did a good job landing on his feet. In his closing remarks to them he seemed to be prompting the jurors to end it right then. And they took him up on it.

Roy

ps and after all, Dave, we do have Bond. Dr. Bond

[curious]

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Nothing solid. Still, hard to attribute to coincidence.

Cheers.
LC

Good Morning, Lynn,

Can you be sure McDermott and Millen even come into the picture at all?

A recent thread has discussed that a man matching the description of Blotchy, seen with Kelly, was actually an undercover cop -- so it's possible McDermott wasn't anywhere close to Whitechapel or MJK.

Plus, research has indicated that Millen wasn't even in England at the time.

There is discussion on another current thread that Joe Isaacs, once considered a JTR suspect, also wore the type coat described by Hutchinson.

So, perhaps the descriptions did not need to be fed to anyone because they were not involved in the case. And perhaps both descriptions were spot on for people actually there on the scene.

To what end would descriptions have been fed to witnesses? Why would it make sense?

Velma

[Observer]

Remarkable!

Hello Velma. Thanks.

Don't know. Sounds like she and Hutch were fed the descriptions. Why? I am open to suggestions.

Cheers.
LC

Let me try and get my head around this.

Cox and Hutchinson were fed information to the effect that at inquest they would purjurer themselves by providing information which would hoodwink the jury into believing that Mary Kelly met up with Mr A, and Blotchy on the night of her murder. Mr A, and Blotchy are thus ficticious characters.

The motive for this rather drastic course of action was to implicate Red Jim McDermott, and Francis Millen, in the murder of Mary Kelly. I'm flabergasted, as Frankie Howard would say, never has my flabber been so gasted. If this is the case you would have thought that they would have instructed Cox to reveal McDemotts real age. Cox informed the inquest that she estimated the man she saw with Kell that night was approximately 36 years of age. McDemott was 20 years older than that in 1888.

And if Millen was indeed in America at the time of the Kelly murder then wouldn't the conspirators know this? If so what would be the point of incriminating him?

You know, we Jackters take some stick in believing that a Sociopathic killer murder those women back in 1888. The alternative solution? Lots and lots of the drivel outlined above.

Furthermore

It has been stated by one poster that all talk of serial killers in relation to the Whitechapel murders here in Case book be deemed off topic. Something has occured to me however. What of Icshenshmid? He was, in the eyes of the said poster, responsible for the murders of Nichols, and Chapman. Surely if he had not been apprehended he would have gone on killing ? I mean, he had already brutally slain two women and carried out horrific mutilations. It's clear he seemed to enjoy his work, he had and agenda, he took away the womb of Chapman. Until he was arrested well on the way to being a serial killer really.

Regards

Observer

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Observer,

Some comments on your post..

Cox and Hutchinson were fed information to the effect that at inquest they would purjurer themselves by providing information which would hoodwink the jury into believing that Mary Kelly met up with Mr A, and Blotchy on the night of her murder. Mr A, and Blotchy are thus ficticious characters.


Since only Cox testified at the Inquest, Mr Astrakan may have been created to appeal to Abberlines sensibilities, not a jury's. After all, he is our local Fenian knowledge base in these cases.

The motive for this rather drastic course of action was to implicate Red Jim McDermott, and Francis Millen, in the murder of Mary Kelly.

Im not arguing this particular scenario myself, but its possible that Mary Kellys murder was made to look as if she had met a Ripper, ..so there may be basis for this murder to suggest the murder was "pinned" on someone by some evidence,... in the case of pinning it on Jack, the condition of the corpse is the evidence.

And if Millen was indeed in America at the time of the Kelly murder then wouldn't the conspirators know this? If so what would be the point of incriminating him?

I believe Millen was elsewhere but not in America, point being, the point of fingering Millen, if one was empathetic to the Irish cause, is to try and frame him because of his traitorous behavior based on his double agent status. I could see law enforcement wanting to have him in custody as well.

You know, we Jackters take some stick in believing that a Sociopathic killer murder those women back in 1888. The alternative solution? Lots and lots of the drivel outlined above.

I dont mean to disparage anyones beliefs, but as a "Jackter" you must realize that there is virtually nothing that might connect some of these murders with the others and a "Jack", ..hence, the more probable solution is that we have more than just one mans work here.

It has been stated by one poster that all talk of serial killers in relation to the Whitechapel murders here in Case book be deemed off topic. Something has occured to me however. What of Icshenshmid? He was, in the eyes of the said poster, responsible for the murders of Nichols, and Chapman. Surely if he had not been apprehended he would have gone on killing ? I mean, he had already brutally slain two women and carried out horrific mutilations. It's clear he seemed to enjoy his work, he had and agenda, he took away the womb of Chapman. Until he was arrested well on the way to being a serial killer really.

I suppose you have the foundation for a multiple murderer assignation, one I happen to agree with in the case of Polly and Annie...same killer....and you have the potential for serial killings had he been able to kill more women....if he actually killed any. You also have a Torso maker. A serial one it would seem.

I believe what is represented in the above is that there was in fact 1 serial killer running around loose at that time,... 1 who was likely of a serial bent but was restricted to a small group of victims, and you have other women killed by someone assumed to be Jack the Ripper.

Like Ive said many times...suggesting that the Canonical Group was a list of a single serial killers victims because serial killers are rare isnt really a sound argument. We can see evidence of at least2 different men here.


Best regards

[GregBaron]

Canon leads by a whisker...

Hi Observer,


We can see evidence of at least2 different men here.

That's just it Michael. We can see evidence of several perps and we can not see evidence of multiples. We can basically see whatever we want. I don't believe there's evidence either way. Just because the murders vary in their M.O. doesn't mean different perps. It could, we just don't know.

As the serial experts have said, M.O.'s vary but signature's rarely do. The signature of 4 of the canon are the same.

Many can see Stride as a one off. Other's can't. I think it's good that you and the Lynn Cates' of the world look for alternatives and when we get to far-off victims like Coles, many admittedly are left to scratch their heads.

I expect both lines of inquiry are good for us all. Since there's no evidence for Fenian or Prussian involvement and some 1888 authorities believed in the canon, I'd say the canon is in the lead, in fact I'd say it's 40-Love canon...

It's the multipliers serve, so fire away.....


Greg

[Observer]

Good well balanced post Greg. I'll be the first to admit though that I am not capable of such a post. I refuse to sit on the fence.

As you point out despite many years of searching by multiple individuals no evidence of Fenian, or Prussian involvment has emerged.

I think what is emerging of late here in Casebook is that the conspiracy adherents are grasping at straws. They have not a scrap of reliable evidence which would suggest the Fenians, the Ochrana, Special Branch, The Secret Tribly Hat Wearers, indeed any such secret organisation are involved in the Whitechapel murders. Result, they resort to what in my mind is the absurd.

"I expect both lines of enquiry are good for us all"

Apparently not, once again,and I quote "all talk of a serial killer when discussing the Whitechapel murders should be deemed off topic."

Regards

Observer

[lynn cates]

Lists R Us

Hello Greg. The polls look like around 60% for Liz; 40% against. About the same for "MJK." And some anti-Liz are pro-"MJK" and conversely. Of course, polls say something about people who vote in them--little about what is the case.

You are wise to discuss Coles. And there is even a good bit of movement lately for her and McKenzie--to say nothing of Tabram. All this in light of the FBI's discussion of serial killers.

Interesting that experts like Neil Bell and Stewart Evans list Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes.

Cheers.
LC