Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Malcolm X]

due to this behaviour, it looks like she didn't go out again, not even close to going out.

so JTR has to be either Blotchy, or GH, but which i'm not sure

[Malcolm X]

she stopped singing at 1am, well this might be when she finally passed out blind drunk.... she was probably singing because she was still just about ok, but slowed down and eventually collapsed in bed...........thus quiet at 1am.

i can almost guarantee you that she didn't enter her room and start sobering up, but carried on drinking, because that's just the way a binge drinker is.....FACT.

he wont stand by not drinking, if he's got a guest that is, no bloody chance and i wouldn't either, you're after the booze; you want to get pissed......

this is tremendously important, because this is exactly what MJK was like..... constantly getting evicted, getting drunk with Joe, not the first time she was heard singing, broken window, loud when drunk but fine the rest of the time, this is not a social drinker, this is a weekend binge drinker, which means getting blind drunk.

[Ben]

Agreed all round, Rya, particularly with your first paragraph. Welcome to CB!

Hi Jon,

Well, you keep denying the Daily News account of Lewis watching a couple was up the passage as unconfirmed

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.

Lets face it, we could all jump on this tiresome "witness is lying" bandwagon and insist you prove Cox was not lying, not trying to muscle in on the action.

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? You always seem to be defending the latter, while at the same time calling into question the far more reliable testimony offered by such obviously genuine witnesses as Joseph Lawende and Mary Cox. As everyone should accept, the evidence of Mary Cox is vastly superior to the silly nonsense involving Kelly and a well-dressed drinking companion, especially since the latter was refuted at the inquest by the witness to whom it was attributed by the press.

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

[Malcolm X]

unfortunately Wickerman keeps quoting this junk after the 10th of Nov, it's tabloid rubbish, gossip and tittle tattle, yet he keeps refering to it, as if it's the God spoken truth

you have to use your common sense with regards to the effects of Booze on the human body and the things you've experienced yourself in life, from countless parties/ sessions down the pubs and holidays abroad.

``Cox passed and said "Goodnight." Somewhat incoherently, Kelly replied "Goodnight, I am going to sing." A few minutes later Mrs. Cox hears Kelly singing "A Violet from Mother's Grave" (see below). Cox goes out again at midnight and hears Kelly singing the same song.``

there you go, MJK was drunk, but he wasn't as drunk as her, he gave her a sullan look as if to say ``clear off``, how drunk she was we cant tell, she could have been very drunk indeed, because when you are, you can still talk... just about !

but if she was say, only a bit drunk..... then after a few more pints, (depending on the size of the pail) she would have been blotto, and dont forget that she might have got far more drunk even if she stopped drinking right then, because she might have finished her last drink only 10 mins ago.

[harry]

Ho w far behind Kelly,was Cox,When Kelly entered Millers Court?