Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Prater appears to have stood outside the passage by the shop from 1:00 - 1:20 am, then retired to her room. Had Kelly been singing at that time we might expect her voice to be heard only 25 ft away down the passage.
Regardless, Prater went upstairs at 1:20 and heard nothing from Kelly's room, getting into bed at 1:30 am.
It seems unlikely Kelly was singing after 1:00am.
Regards, Jon S.

She stopped singing between 1:00 and 1:20, certainly. Not sure Prater would have heard her from the shop. McCarthy, with whom Prater spoke briefly, neither said he heard her singing.
In any case, she wasn't shouting "Highway to Hell" - Blotchy loved ballads.

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

Hi Jon
Indeed, Coxes claims are more reliable than Hutch's. To begin with, she didn't come forward after the inquest, and did not remember the color of Blotchy's underpants.

Ah, because she came forward at the Inquest?, reliable....like Maxwell no doubt!

Lets list some points in Cox's claims..
- "With regard to the statement of Mrs. Cox that she saw a man who carried a pot of beer enter, with the deceased, her room in Miller's-court on the morning of the murder, no can has been found, and inquiry has failed to discover any publican who served Kelly or her companion with beer on the night of Thursday. " Daily Telegraph, 14th.
- no-one saw Cox enter or leave Millers Court on either occation.
- Cox made no claim to hearing the cry of "murder", yet she was awake.

What do you see as "reliable"?


My point is Dave, we have a witness dismissed because they never spoke at the Inquest, so unreliable.
Yet we have witnesses who did speak at the Inquest who are both "unverified" and "unreliable".
So appearing at the Inquest has nothing to do with it. The "outside" witnesses are dismissed by people here because of what they say, not where they said it.

No, Jon. That was also the opinion of the investigators, or so it seems.

"It seems", are you guessing?

And nobody saw Kelly in the streets at such a time. Nobody except Hutch. Nobody saw Astrakhan Man either.

Thats not quite correct, Kennedy was referenced as seeing Kelly outside the Britannia, and according to the Daily Telegraph there were other witnesses who were never given the opportunity to be sworn & speak, because of MacDonald.
"...it is pointed out that by hurriedly closing the inquest the opportunity has been lost of putting on record statements made on oath, and when the memory of witnesses is fresh."
The police were in possession of other statements, and it appeared to be common knowledge.

In fact we also know that over 50 witness statements were taken by the police in connection with this investigation.
So, saying that 'nobody saw Kelly' is making an assumption that those few lay witnesses (9), were all there was, and that does not appear to be the case.
We don't know what those other witnesses saw except for what we read in the press.

One could ask "And Mrs Long's claims were confirmed by who ?", "And Marshall's claims were confirmed by who ?", etc etc....

Precisely, but who was crying about "not being confirmed"?, many witnesses were not confirmed, even some who spoke at the Inquest, so being "confirmed" has nothing to do with it.
Witnesses are being rejected here because of what they say, not whether they were confirmed or not, that is just an excuse.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

When I think of how detailed our knowledge is of the timeline in a few of the earlier cases, it makes me wonder why so few people saw Mary--who seemed to have lots of friends and associates in the immediate area--on the night and morning in question. And this despite the apparent comings and goings in the court at all hours.

Precisly so, Kelly was a popular figure and she was seen by several people late Thursday night, no witness was presented who saw her after midnight.
That fault appears to lay with Macdonald.

...the inquest was pretty much a disaster in staging a coherant narrative of the evening's events. The probable best witness (Maxwell) was the one no one found they could believe.

Wynne Baxter was prepared to open up a second Inquest, apparently he must have been as shocked as everybody else. If Macdonald had released Kelly's body into the Whitechapel district for burial Baxter was ready to pounce.
Macdonald gave the order for burial in Shoreditch.
Odd???

But I do wonder about the depth of contempt the local residents in many of these murder locations had for the police, and the degree to which some of them may have refused to cooperate with officers' inquiries.

To a point yes, traditionally there was always a deep suspicion of the police, but many sources had commented on the galvanizing influence these Ripper murders had on the populace.
With respect to these crimes alone, the people were wholly supportive of the authorities. The police were finding help coming from all directions including what they regarded as the criminal classes.

Regards, Jon S.

[Garry Wroe]

Are Cox's claims any more reliable to you than Hutchinson's? If so, by what "confirmed" measure?

Well, Jon, what about the fact that Mrs Cox appeared before the inquest; or the reality that at least part of her account (that relating to Kelly’s singing) was corroborated by Catherine Picket; or even that her story was never discredited by investigators?

Cox did not even hear the cry of 'murder', and she did not say Kelly was incoherent, she said she didn't know Kelly was drunk until she spoke … So, "near-incoherent" is not an accurate description is it, just more exaggeration as is often the case in Hutchinson debates.

Thankfully, Ben has saved me the trouble of searching out Mrs Cox’s description of Kelly’s demeanour: ‘… she was very drunk and could scarcely answer me …’

Now, would you care to withdraw the allegation of exaggeration on my part?

So, based on your denial of Hutchinson's story "you think" his sighting was not certain, thats all, but thats just your opinion.

My opinion? Oh, I see. So you think the overwhelming evidence indicating that Hutchinson was discredited by investigators serves as confirmation regarding the veracity of his story?

[Dave O]

"Wynne Baxter was prepared to open up a second Inquest, apparently he must have been as shocked as everybody else."

Jon, if you mean that Baxter's aim was to correct the Mary Kelly inquest, he had no such power.

For anyone really interested in Baxter's motivation here, the article "Who Will Hold the Inquest?" in the Star Nov 10 has a pretty sensible description of the problem with the eastern coroners' districts, which was published before the Kelly inquest was held. Baxter intended to hold a second inquest before Macdonald had ever held the first (also shown by the Times' mention of Baxter's visit to Kelly's lodgings, I believe on the 10th).

Also helpful are 1) parliamentary debate on March 15 1889 re: the case of Louisa Ellesden, who died on Feb 25 that year, and for whom double inquests were actually held by Macdonald and Baxter and 2) since Baxter's reasoning wasn't given, a reading of several relevant sections of The Coroner's Act 1887 for what I'm sure is only a rough understanding of what Baxter's actual interpretation may have been, dealing with things like when a coroner should hold an inquest and what penalties he may face for failing to hold one.

Dave

[Dave O]

Spitalfields, Shoreditch, Norton Folgate are odd

"Macdonald gave the order for burial in Shoreditch.
Odd???"

His district was odd. No mortuary in Spitalfieds had its impact as illustrated in my previous post.

There's one strange case from the end of June 1888 that involved an infant who died in Fashion Street in Spitalfields, if you'll pardon me for thinking aloud for a moment.

With most of Macdonald's records, the coroner's officer's request for a warrant has survived. This was a form the coroner's officer filled out at the scene of the death. Usually what happened was the coroner sent the officer to make a preliminary investigation to see if an inquest was warranted, and one of the things the officer did was arrange a venue for the inquest.

On this particular case from June, Macdonald's officer was Benjamin Beavis, who in 1891 is described as the keeper of the court in Norton Folgate. He initially set the venue as The Black Swan (many of the Christchurch inquests were held there), but this time the venue is crossed out and the Court House in White Lion street, Norton Folgate substituted--the explanation that Beavis gave was that the body had been moved there. So because the view of the corpse required the inquest to be held near the body, the venue was changed to the court house in Norton Folgate, and that's where the inquest was held.

The weird thing is that "H. Wilton" was paid to remove the body per the description of expenses--my assumption is that this is the same Wilton involved with Mary Kelly's body in Shoreditch. However, my understanding is that Norton Folgate was, like Spitalfields, actually part of the Whitechapel Sanitary District as of 1855 (though it looks like it also had ties to Shoreditch); Wilton's involvement is a mystery to me, coming down from Shoreditch to remove a body that's outside his sphere of operation--so far as I know at least.

And what I'm really wondering is if the court house there had some sort of mortuary nearby, and if so, whether that could have served as an alternative to taking Mary Kelly to Shoreditch's mortuary in November? In this scenario, you would still have the double inquest potential, but with Shoreditch out of the picture, you wouldn't encounter the problem with the jury/Shoreditch vestry we see at the Kelly inquest (which I put down as the cause for the lack of adjournment we see there).

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

I don't deny it as "unconfirmed". I deny it as wholly false, and while I attribute this to journalistic misreporting rather than outright invention, it is no less wrong for that. Sarah Lewis did not see anyone in the Miller's Court passage.

I see you have backed yourself into a corner with this.

Some weeks back I seem to recall a type of face-saving counter argument being offered that Hutchinson might have aquired part of his story of events that night from the statement by Sarah Lewis.
It was suggested at the time that Hutch waited outside the Inquest to embellish his story with some facts?
Was that not your suggestion?

Hutchinson saw a couple walk up the passage into Millers Court, this is in writing.

If Hutchinson was not actually present in Dorset St., so could not see the couple walk up the passage then, as you say he must have aquired this info from Lewis?
So you must be admitting that Lewis did see the same couple walk up the passage. How else could he have known?

Either Hutch was present and saw Kelly + man himself, or he gained that knowledge from Lewis, who did see them.
You have painted yourself into a corner with that.

For that observation to be written in Hutchinson's statement he had to have seen it himself, or heard it said by someone who came out of the Inquiry (therefore added it falsely to his statement?). This is circumstantial that it actually occurred.
More likely the former than the latter.

I've asked you this before, but surely you don't seriously dispute that a greater importance should be attached to police statements and inquest testimony over unsourced press snippets?

Unsourced?
John McCarthy is quoted as saying;
At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the Britannia public house, at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed.

Why do you doubt it?, on what grounds, and by what contradictory evidence do you reject this?

Mary Ann Cox's statement read as follows:

"About a quarter to twelve last night I came into Dorset Street from Commercial Street, and saw walking in front of me Mary Jane with a man, they turned into the Court and as I entered the Court they went in doors, as they were going into her room, I said good night Mary Jane, she was very drunk and could scarcely answer me, but said good night, the man was carrying a quart can of beer"

Garry's "near incoherent" is thus a 100% accurate description.

All the best,
Ben

Is this the same “Ben” who has been trying to ridicule me for using unsworn statements?

Ben, I check everything, so why you would choose to try pass ”unsworn” words by Cox as if she had said them at the Inquest simply to try to win an argument is to say the least very amusing.

Those words (your quote) were provided to the police in her pre-inquest statement, but when it came to being sworn, she changed her words.
Of course, our trusting Casebook members have not realised you are trying to pull a fast one over on everyone.

I already quoted Cox's “sworn” words in a previous post:

Initially, in her introductory statement, to some degree paraphrased by the press, she indicated Kelly was “very much intoxicated”. Yet when asked specifically what she meant, Cox then replied verbatim:

I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night.

Whether Kelly's (presumed) speech impediment (see Maxwell) contributed in any way to Cox mishearing her words is a point to be considered.
Apparently Kelly was not bouncing off the walls as she walked up the passage with Blotchy, so there was no visible reason for Cox to think Kelly was “too drunk”, and Cox then corrected herself by explaining it was Kelly's words which clued her in that Kelly had been drinking.
Not a strong argument.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

"Wynne Baxter was prepared to open up a second Inquest, apparently he must have been as shocked as everybody else."

Jon, if you mean that Baxter's aim was to correct the Mary Kelly inquest, he had no such power.

Dave

Thankyou Dave.

What I was referring to is the press report here:

"A second inquest would have been held on the body had it been removed into the Whitechapel district for burial. Mr. Wynne Baxter states that in that case it could not have been avoided, but the double inquiry has been averted by the action of Mr. H. Wilton, parish clerk and keeper of the Shoreditch mortuary. He has undertaken to inter the body at his own expense, assisted by contributions which may be received, and yesterday he obtained from the coroner's officer, Mr. Hammond, an order to prepare the coffin. Much surprise is expressed that the inquest should have been closed before an opportunity was given to the relatives of the deceased to identify the body.
.
.
.
It is in the power of the Attorney-General to apply to the High Court of Justice to hold a new inquest, if he is satisfied that there has been rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, or insufficiency of inquiry. This course is improbable, as it is stated that Mr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, with whom the coroner consulted in private, has had a commission from the Home Office for some time, and he does not consider himself a "free agent"; but it is pointed out that by hurriedly closing the inquest the opportunity has been lost of putting on record statements made on oath, and when the memory of witnesses is fresh."
The Daily Telegraph, 14 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rya]

Sorry to butt in again on this engrossing "who saw what when" polemic, but a couple of things are worth noting--

From time immemorial, investigators are suspicious of witnesses who see things at a distance, or at a glance, because witnesses are by and large unstudied in their observations, and often prone to error. A witness that held a conversation with the person in question would have been viewed as more reliable. Thus, if I say I saw MJK across the street yesterday morning in front of the public house, thats one thing. But if I say I talked her myself in front of that public house, we had a chat about this and that, and we called each other by name, thats something different. The police would take the second scenario much more seriously than the first, and would be more likely to call the second witness to testify in a court. I think this was the general logic we see, for example, with Cox and Maxwell in this murder. Of course, a witness could still speak an untruth under oath, or state a gross exaggeration, but they would much less likely to have simply been mistaken.

Also, I believe McCarthy did hear Mary singing after midnight in at least one press account, where he said something to the effect that he noticed her singing and she seemed in "good spirits," etc. This is credible to the extent that he was still in his shop at the time, as evidenced by his subsequent conversation with Mrs. Prater. Perhaps someone can identify that press report.

Lastly, I have always assumed that Macdonald was worried about whether his jury could be reconvened if it were adjourned--he had several disgruntled members on his hands, and a lack of alternates. If a full jury could not be reconvened at a later date, the whole process would have to be begun anew from scratch. Is this correct in terms of the law at the time?

[Dave O]

Thanks Jon. Yes, I'm aware of the High Court's power, but that's not connected to what Baxter was doing.

Dave

[Dave O]

Thanks Jon. Disregard my previous post. Likely I misunderstand the point you're making.

"Lastly, I have always assumed that Macdonald was worried about whether his jury could be reconvened if it were adjourned--he had several disgruntled members on his hands, and a lack of alternates. If a full jury could not be reconvened at a later date, the whole process would have to be begun anew from scratch. Is this correct in terms of the law at the time?"

Rya! Yes! The inquest would "drop", and they would have to start all over again--this is described in commentary in Jervis on the Coroner's Act 1887. I also have a similar example of having to start all over because jurors won't return a verdict in a case in Surrey. New jurors would need access to the evidence already presented--in Kelly's case, that would include an exhumation because the jury would need to view the body for the inquest to be valid. It would be a mess.

From the time he takes office, 14 June to 15 Nov 1888, Macdonald is adjourning with 13-15 jurors several times, and in just about all cases, he's never having more than 15, maybe 16 once (jurors weren't paid for their service). Usually it's 13-14. But there are examples of the officer summoning more than that. Perhaps they're either being excused or not showing up, I cannot tell. Their names don't appear on the inquisitions. But Mary Kelly presents a sensational, high profile case AND for the very first time, Macdonald's officer is taking a body from Spitalfields into Shoreditch looking for the nearest mortuary, and he's crossing sanitary districts doing it. For a case like the Kelly inquest to adjourn, they need more jurors, especially when some are objecting, apparently one doesn't take the oath and gets kicked out, and then there's a perceived interference with the jury.

Dave

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Thats not quite correct, Kennedy was referenced as seeing Kelly outside the Britannia, and according to the Daily Telegraph there were other witnesses who were never given the opportunity to be sworn & speak, because of MacDonald.
"...it is pointed out that by hurriedly closing the inquest the opportunity has been lost of putting on record statements made on oath, and when the memory of witnesses is fresh."
The police were in possession of other statements, and it appeared to be common knowledge.

In fact we also know that over 50 witness statements were taken by the police in connection with this investigation.
So, saying that 'nobody saw Kelly' is making an assumption that those few lay witnesses (9), were all there was, and that does not appear to be the case.
We don't know what those other witnesses saw except for what we read in the press.
Regards, Jon S.

Nobody saw Mary in the streets, nor in the Court, after 1:00 - except Hutch. Had it been the case, we would know.
Maxwell did testify at the inquest, so why not a witness who would have seen her during the night ?
You're welcome to believe Hutch's story, but don't tell me it was backed up by other witnesses. That's simply not the case.

[harry]

Thanks Ben,
So Cox was always behind the couple,plus it seems that Blotchy was already in the room,and Kelly about to enter as Cox turned into the court.Even if the light in the court was on,one author has it that Prater describes the court as being in total darkness,Cox wouldn't have seen much.certainly not the man's features.In addition,Cox would not have been in time to see how the door was opened.

[Ben]

Just say "thanks for the correction" next time, Jon. There's no dishonour in it, and it works a good deal better than lashing out with childish accusations. My "trying to pull a fast one" amounts simply to correcting your silly chastisement of Garry for characterizing Kelly's condition as "near incoherent", which as it turns out was precisely accurate. Yes, I was quoting from Mary Ann Cox's police statement, which naturally carries weight, or at least considerably more weight than the preposterous press offerings that you continually dredge up and regard as gospel for some unfathomable reason. She did not change her evidence at all. Kelly could scarcely bid her a simple goodnight, according to Cox's police statement. "Near incoherent" Kelly most certainly was.

Is this the same “Ben” who has been trying to ridicule me for using unsworn statements?

Police statement.

Are you seriously suggesting that a police statement has equal value to a piece of uncorroborated second-hand (or worse) hearsay that appeared in the press? Because if so, you need to lash out far less, and reassess your entire approach.

And no, the idea that drunken incoherence can be confused with a "speech impediment" is very silly and unconvincing, especially given that Mary Cox had known her for some time.

John McCarthy is quoted as saying;
At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the Britannia public house, at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed.

Why do you doubt it?, on what grounds, and by what contradictory evidence do you reject this?

When will you understand that it doesn't work like that?

You are quoting from a press interview with McCarthy who was passing on gossip. Hearsay. The sighting didn't originate with McCarthy himself, and he didn't even provide the name of the alleged sighting's originator. As evidence, therefore, it is distinctly lacking in value, and only made worse by the fact that McCarthy said nothing of the sighting at the inquest, where such a detail would have been of considerable interest to the jury and coroner. It would be absurd to treat it unquestioningly as accurate just because it can't be proven false, and yet, fascinatingly, this is precisely the approach you adopt and encourage.

Even more fascinating, the only witnesses whose credibility you do cast doubt upon are those who provided both police statements and inquest testimony, and who were generally considered reliable by the police. Hence your attempt to discredit Cox, whilst championing the likes of "Mrs. Kennedy" and the unnamed mystery person who might have claimed to have seen Kelly in the pub with yet another mystery man. It's all hopelessly the wrong way round.

This "corner" that I'm supposed to have backed myself into is nothing of the kind. I was responding simply to your mistaken impression that Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter the Miller's Court passage. She most assuredly did not. She saw a man and a woman at the corner of Dorset Street (couple #1), another couple "passing along" Dorset Street (couple #2), and a man standing near the lodging house opposite the court entrance. "Nobody in the court", though.

It is obvious, incidentally, that the police were in possession of other evidence that related to the Kelly murder, and which did not appear at the inquest, but these would not have included eyewitness sightings of the victim on the streets in the small hours. These would have been prioritized (if considered reliable, obviously) and almost certainly aired at the inquest. So I really wouldn't assume from the early closure of the inquest that there were other genuine small-hours Kelly sightings doing the rounds.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben.


I see you have backed yourself into a corner with this.

Some weeks back I seem to recall a type of face-saving counter argument being offered that Hutchinson might have aquired part of his story of events that night from the statement by Sarah Lewis.
It was suggested at the time that Hutch waited outside the Inquest to embellish his story with some facts?
Was that not your suggestion?

Hutchinson saw a couple walk up the passage into Millers Court, this is in writing.

If Hutchinson was not actually present in Dorset St., so could not see the couple walk up the passage then, as you say he must have aquired this info from Lewis?
So you must be admitting that Lewis did see the same couple walk up the passage. How else could he have known?

Either Hutch was present and saw Kelly + man himself, or he gained that knowledge from Lewis, who did see them.
You have painted yourself into a corner with that.

For that observation to be written in Hutchinson's statement he had to have seen it himself, or heard it said by someone who came out of the Inquiry (therefore added it falsely to his statement?). This is circumstantial that it actually occurred.
More likely the former than the latter.



Unsourced?
John McCarthy is quoted as saying;
At eleven o'clock last night she was seen in the Britannia public house, at the corner of this thoroughfare, with a young man with a dark moustache. She was then intoxicated. The young man appeared to be very respectable and well dressed.

Why do you doubt it?, on what grounds, and by what contradictory evidence do you reject this?



Is this the same “Ben” who has been trying to ridicule me for using unsworn statements?

Ben, I check everything, so why you would choose to try pass ”unsworn” words by Cox as if she had said them at the Inquest simply to try to win an argument is to say the least very amusing.

Those words (your quote) were provided to the police in her pre-inquest statement, but when it came to being sworn, she changed her words.
Of course, our trusting Casebook members have not realised you are trying to pull a fast one over on everyone.

I already quoted Cox's “sworn” words in a previous post:

Initially, in her introductory statement, to some degree paraphrased by the press, she indicated Kelly was “very much intoxicated”. Yet when asked specifically what she meant, Cox then replied verbatim:

I did not notice she was drunk until she said good night.

Whether Kelly's (presumed) speech impediment (see Maxwell) contributed in any way to Cox mishearing her words is a point to be considered.
Apparently Kelly was not bouncing off the walls as she walked up the passage with Blotchy, so there was no visible reason for Cox to think Kelly was “too drunk”, and Cox then corrected herself by explaining it was Kelly's words which clued her in that Kelly had been drinking.
Not a strong argument.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker
Either Hutch was present and saw Kelly + man himself, or he gained that knowledge from Lewis, who did see them.

Or he was there waiting (confirmed by Lewis) but made up Kelly and A-man story. You left out that option.

Also, isnt funny that the only part of Hutchs story that is corroberated by anyone else is his waiting and watching?