Suppose a City PC did see something near Mitre Square

[Stephen Thomas]

and that's why they never arrested him because they knew who he was all make sense to me

Well that's what the man is supposed to have said 108 years ago.

Who are we to quibble?

[Chris]

Do you see this as related to Cox's story?

On the whole I think Sagar and Cox were probably referring to different suspects, though it's difficult to be sure.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Michael

Great stuff, but it still says nothing about investigating suspects.

Well the section below from the same source seems to suggest it could fall as part of his duties in certain circumstances

It shall be the duty of the coroner in a case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case, or so much of such statement as is material, and any such deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.

The coroner should where possible follow the precise expressions of the witnesses in the first person. Tbe depositions are afterwards forwarded under section 5 to the proper officer of the court in which the trial is to be, and copies supplied, upon payment, to the person charged in the inquisition, if he requires them.

It's actually quite an interesting work, albeit a trifle heavy, and I'm making my way through it a little at time!

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Interestingly I found this too, which I hadn't realised:-

Where a coroner's inquisition charges a person with the oflence of murder or of manslaughter, or of being accessory before the fact to a murder, (which latter offence is in this Act included in the expression "murder,") the coroner shall issue his warrant for attesting or detaining such person (if such warrant has not previously been issued) and shall bind by recognizance all such persons examined before him as know or declare anything material touching the said offence to appear at the next court of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery at which the trial is to be, then and there to prosecute or give evidence against the person so charged.

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

Hi Dave.

Read section 3, part 3. of the 1887 Coroner's Act.

[Phil H]

Wasn't there a good deal of police activity around Aldgate/Mitre Square on the night of the double event because of a robbery close by?

Maybe I'm mistaken.

Phil

[lynn cates]

similar

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Well, there are several stories very much alike. White also seems to have had a similar experience.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

robbery

Hello Phil. I was thinking that the post office robbery came later?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I don't have my books or reference notes to hand I'm afraid. I believe there might be a thread on here somewhere.

Searching I found this old thread that covers (it seems) much the same ground as this one.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6729&highlight=post+office

For interest. I'll go on searching.

[Monty]

Does King's-block in the model dwellings in Stoney Lane suggest any of the known suspects?

And where is this in relationship to Goulston St.? Never mind, just Googled and oh, my -- 3/10 of a mile and 7 minutes -- a native would know short cuts from the looks of the map . . .

thx,
curious

Goolge is wrong.

About 1 to 2 minutes brisk walk I'd say.

Monty

[Wickerman]

On the whole I think Sagar and Cox were probably referring to different suspects, though it's difficult to be sure.

With Sagar, there appears to be elements of the Eddowes, Kelly & Coles murder, all rolled into one. Given that this recollection first appeared so long after the murders, confused details may be expected.

[Monty]

The robbery was discovered on the Monday, after the murder Phil.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Cris

Hi Dave.

Read section 3, part 3. of the 1887 Coroner's Act.

The Treatise I'm reading is that of the office and duties of Coroners by Sir John Jervis, updated for the Coroners Act 1887 with forms and precedents attached. Section 3 (3) appears to be:-

3.(3.) When not less than twelve jurors are assembled they shall be sworn by or before the coroner diligently to inquire touching the death of the person on whose body the inquest is about to be held, and a true verdict to give according to the evidence.

Which is then followed by pages and pages discussing legal definitions and precedents in all sorts of circumstances- followed by:-

4.(1.) The coroner and jury shall, at the first sitting of the inquest, view the body, and the coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts and all persons having knowledge of the facts whom he thinks it expedient to examine.

More pages on just how far a Coroner may go (a long way it seems) then

4.(2.) It shall be the duty of the coroner in a case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath of those who know the facts and circumstances of the case, or so much of such statement as is material, and any such deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.

and

4.(3.) After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict, and certify it by an inquisition in writing, setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter, the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter, or of being accessories before the fact to such murder.

Cue more pages of precedent!

It would appear that in cases of murder or manslaughter Coroners had a right if not a duty to go further than merely estanlishing cause of death

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

It appears to me that there is some confusion here between the duties of a Coroner for an Inquest where cause of death is yet to be established, and the Coroner's duties in a murder Case where an accused is on trial.

[Monty]

Huge confusion Jon,

Monty