The silence of Abberline

[Varqm]

Or Pierre's data

[SirJohnFalstaff]

^ These inquests were presided over by two very different coroners though, (who were great rivals.) Wynne Baxter was expansive and inclined to let witnesses have their head and to explore different theories ie uteri. MacDonald was a very different kettle of fish and ran a very tight ship. People gave their testimony and then left the witness box, no hanging about.

You're too nice. This is about a coroner MacDonald's inquest, in The Blackest Streets (p 101):

"(...) he became very ill and died three days later of a brain haemorrhage. Mysteriously, the coroner would not allow ten witnesses - with tales of how Edwards (the victim) had been drugged and robbed and 'given the boots' in the head by a group of Whitechapel women - to address the court, and the jury brought in a verdict of accidental death."

this paragraph is interesting. Reminds me a bit of Horsnell and Millwood.

Also, pure sidetrack speculation, maybe Hutchinson expected the inquest to be much longer (Stride was over 5 sessions), so when he heard it was over, he went straight to the police.

[MysterySinger]

Despite the "military" appearance I have the impression of Hutch as a vagrant. Who knows what he might have been up to in the intervening period but perusing the papers might not have been high on his list of priorities.

[Pierre]

Hi,

Many posters have expressed the belief that the police told the truth about the crime scene in Miller´s Court. But were the police really able to tell the truth about the details of this murder scene at the inquest?

Only Beck and Abberline were present at the inquest. Beck said just a few words.

So how did Abberline describe the murder scene? Did he tell the truth about the details in 13 Miller´s Court?

Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, inspector of police, Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland-yard, stated: I am in charge of this case. I arrived at Miller's-court about 11.30 on Friday morning.

[Coroner] Was it by your orders that the door was forced ?

- No; I had an intimation from Inspector Beck that the bloodhounds had been sent for, and the reply had been received that they were on the way. ABBERLINE REFERS TO BECK.

Dr. Phillips was unwilling to force the door, as it would be very much better to test the dogs, if they were coming. ABBERLINE REFERS TO PHILLIPS.

We remained until about 1.30 p.m., when Superintendent Arnold arrived, and he informed me that the order in regard to the dogs had been countermanded, and he gave orders for the door to be forced. ABBERLINE REFERS TO ARNOLD.

I agree with the medical evidence as to the condition of the room. ABBERLINE AGAIN REFERS TO PHILLIPS.

I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room.

ABBERLINE USES THE EXPRESSION “THE CONTENTS”. ARE THEY DESCRIBED BY ABBERLINE IN ALL THEIR DETAILS? (WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE DETAILS!) LET´S SEE:


There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt. ABBERLINE´S “CONTENTS” IS THE FIREPLACE AND IT´S CONTENTS.

[Coroner] Can you give any reason why they were burnt ? - I can only imagine that it was to make a light for the man to see what he was doing. There was only one small candle in the room, on the top of a broken wine-glass. ABBERLINE´S “CONTENTS” NOW INCLUDES A GLASS AND “A SMALL CANDLE”.

An impression has gone abroad that the murderer took away the key of the room. Barnett informs me that it has been missing some time, and since it has been lost they have put their hand through the broken window, and moved back the catch. It is quite easy. There was a man's clay pipe in the room, and Barnett informed me that he smoked it. ABBERLINE REFERS TO BARNETT.


[Coroner] Is there anything further the jury ought to know ?
- No; if there should be I can communicate with you, sir.

Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...est_kelly.html

TO SUM UP: At the inquest, Abberline actually says ALMOST NOTHING about the contents of the room in 13 Miller´s Court.

In his descriptions of his own inventory of the contents of the room he can only speak about a fireplace, a glass and a candle.

The other statements are exclusively references to statements of other persons.

Also his opinion is that there is nothing further that the jury ought to know. (!!)

So someone has killed and mutilated a woman in 13 Miller´s Court and Abberline can only refer to others and describe a fireplace, a glass and a candle.

Why did Abberline say nothing about the victim, the bed, the tables, the doors, the windows and the partition in the room?

Regards Pierre

Also his opinion is that there is nothing further that the jury ought to know. (!!)

[David Orsam]

[Coroner] Is there anything further the jury ought to know ?
- No; if there should be I can communicate with you, sir.

Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...est_kelly.html

.....

Also his opinion is that there is nothing further that the jury ought to know. (!!)

How wonderfully ironic that you rely on a newspaper report, in this case the Daily Telegraph, as your only source for the comment that is at the heart of your post, in circumstances where we do not find that particular question and answer in any official source, including Abberline's deposition.

[harry]

I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room'.'

My understanding would be that Aberline noted and recorded the rooms contents,and at the inquest simply spoke of things that he(Aberline) believed to be of greater importance.
Nothing wrong with that. The written inventory was available if required.

[David Orsam]

I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room'.'

My understanding would be that Aberline noted and recorded the rooms contents,and at the inquest simply spoke of things that he(Aberline) believed to be of greater importance.
Nothing wrong with that. The written inventory was available if required.

Furthermore, as I pointed out in #2 in this thread: "The jury had, in any event, already been taken to 13 Miller's Court, and seen the layout with their own eyes, so they didn't need a description of the room to be given to them."

[Pierre]

How wonderfully ironic that you rely on a newspaper report, in this case the Daily Telegraph, as your only source for the comment that is at the heart of your post, in circumstances where we do not find that particular question and answer in any official source, including Abberline's deposition.

Hi David,

I know, it is ironic, isn´t it? But the post was written before I had the source. So no problem, I will analyse the original source when I have the time. I am looking forward to it. Thanks for reminding me!

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I subsequently took an inventory of the contents of the room'.'

My understanding would be that Aberline noted and recorded the rooms contents,and at the inquest simply spoke of things that he(Aberline) believed to be of greater importance.
Nothing wrong with that. The written inventory was available if required.

Hi Harry,

"Greater importance" - a glass or a candle?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Furthermore, as I pointed out in #2 in this thread: "The jury had, in any event, already been taken to 13 Miller's Court, and seen the layout with their own eyes, so they didn't need a description of the room to be given to them."

Did the jury see the grate, the glass and the candle in the room?

Regards, Pierre

[harry]

Pierre,
If we knew the answer,glass or candle, would it make a difference?
Both are mentioned.One could be a source of light,the other a support for that source.How do they equate with honesty?

[GUT]

If this is an example of the great ones thinking all I can say is HELP

[Rosella]

Does Pierre mean the mirror/looking glass or the decanter-like glass that was seen in one of the photos. Is he hinting the mirror has some significance? It is an absolute nuisance that Aberline's inventory has gone missing but in over a hundred years of sticky fingered souvenir hunting I don't think that is too remarkable. The grate would certainly have remained as it was for the jury visit --after Aberline had done his sifting.

[Shaggyrand]

Is he hinting the mirror has some significance?

If he wasn't before, he certainly will be now.

[David Orsam]

I know, it is ironic, isn´t it? But the post was written before I had the source.

The post I was responding to was written by you two days ago Pierre. In that post, you said: "Also his opinion is that there is nothing further that the jury ought to know. (!!)". That opinion is not reflected in his official deposition. I would have expected a lot better from an expert source critic such as yourself.