Hutchinsons statement....

[David Orsam]

Also if the Coroner believed that Kelly was still alive at 8:30 am what is the possible relevance of anything Lewis had to say about the cry of murder in the middle of the night?

[Wickerman]

But the Coroner told Maxwell that her evidence differed from that of others, suggesting that there was some doubt in the matter.

No other witness offered a time of death, so his caution was not with respect to previous testimony. What I think was on his mind is the medical evidence, which had yet to be heard but Macdonald may very well have been aware of.

And, in any event, Kennedy supposedly saw Kelly in the company of a suspicious man at 3am. Now you can't be telling me that isn't highly relevant regardless of whether Maxwell's evidence was right or wrong.

We might think he was suspicious, but Macdonald appeared to show far more interest in Cox's suspect.

[Sam Flynn]

We might think he was suspicious, but Macdonald appeared to show far more interest in Cox's suspect.

... all the more reason to have Blotchy exonerated by the testimonies of two witnesses - Lewis and Kennedy - who reported similar suspicious events in connection with Kelly later that morning.

[Wickerman]

Also if the Coroner believed that Kelly was still alive at 8:30 am what is the possible relevance of anything Lewis had to say about the cry of murder in the middle of the night?

I didn't say he believed Maxwell, in fact I think he believed Cox, but I see no reason for him to call a series of witnesses who may have claimed to see Kelly at various times over night into the morning.
Just pick the last one.

Sarah Lewis's testimony only provided this loiterer, and a cry of murder that was common - so was it murder related or not?
No conclusion was reached, but he may have felt compelled to give the claim publicity.

[David Orsam]

No other witness offered a time of death.

Well we don't know what Dr Phillips said in any written report but there was evidence from two witnesses of a cry of murder by a female less than an hour after Kelly was supposedly seen in the company of a man who had already accosted two women. And the Coroner had absolutely no interest in that? Seriously?

[David Orsam]

Sarah Lewis's testimony only provided this loiterer, and a cry of murder that was common - so was it murder related or not?
No conclusion was reached, but he may have felt compelled to give the claim publicity.

I thought the reason for the Coroner choosing Lewis was because she could give testimony about a man she saw standing in the street looking up at Miller's Court waiting for someone to come out at 2.30am? But Kennedy supposedly tells us that at 3am Kelly was with a man - a man who had already attempted to accost her in the street - outside the Britannia; and Lewis had supposedly seen the same couple (without recognising Kelly) at 2.30am.

So the man standing opposite Miller's Court waiting for someone to come out doesn't seem to have been very important does he? If he was waiting for Kelly he could have found her a few metres up the road.

[Wickerman]

I mentioned this before, the Star newspaper was present at the inquest, but they left during Prater's testimony.
The reporter had just heard Cox's testimony, and he left, they went to press that afternoon with a sub-title, THE MURDERER DESCRIBED. where they provide Cox's description of Kelly's client.

On the one hand this demonstrates how untrustworthy the Star was, they will invent a story before considering the whole inquest testimony.
They missed Lewis, Dr Phillips, VanTurney, Harvey, Abberline, etc.

However, the reporter may also have picked up on Macdonald's attitude, something that cannot always be captured by the written coverage of the days proceedings.
Macdonald did appear to fire more questions at Cox than any other witness, which may betray his inclinations towards the time of death.

[Wickerman]

I thought the reason for the Coroner choosing Lewis was because she could give testimony about a man she saw standing in the street looking up at Miller's Court waiting for someone to come out at 2.30am?

Yes, could he have been an accessory after the fact?
This loiterer may have been connected to a time of death between 1:00-2:00, afterall, it might have taken most of an hour to mutilate the body to such a degree.

[Fisherman]

It's not just seeing where the stories deviate though Fisherman it's what conclusion can be drawn from that. You not only said to me yesterday that there were "a number of factors that do not tally" but also that this means "that the affair is and remains unclear to a degree". I wanted to know what those factors were which, in your mind, was causing the affair to be unclear. You wouldn't tell me because you claimed my question was "unnecessary" although now it's become "futile".

But if one of the factors weighing on your mind is that Kennedy claimed to be the last person to see Kelly alive then I want to know why you think the Coroner did not call her to testify. If, however, you don't think that Kennedy could have seen Kelly alive at 3am then at least we will have made some progress.

"Progress"?

"We"?

It seems to me that the only thing you would regard as "progress" would be for me to unreservedly acknowledge that you are one hundred per cent correct on the matter, and that we may look upon the identification of Mrs Kennedy as Sarah Lewis as a proven thing.

That is not about to happen.

Nor am I going to go into the different discrepancies inbetween the accounts. I thought I was pretty clear on that score?

Why is it that you cannot settle for me accepting the identification as the better bid of the two? Just what is the problem about that...?

[David Orsam]

I mentioned this before, the Star newspaper was present at the inquest, but they left during Prater's testimony.
The reporter had just heard Cox's testimony.

You've got to be careful here. We only have one edition of the Star in the British Library which was the fifth edition. It's perfectly possible that Prater's testimony was reported in a later, special edition. Although I appreciate that he would have had to get his report in for the fifth edition, I would be very cautious of saying he wasn't present for her testimony.

[Wickerman]

... all the more reason to have Blotchy exonerated by the testimonies of two witnesses - Lewis and Kennedy - who reported similar suspicious events in connection with Kelly later that morning.

I doubt that would happen.

One of the reason's the police were so exasperated by John Richardson's testimony in the Chapman case is it directly contested the (preferred) opinion of Dr. Phillips. We do read how thoroughly the police tried to poke holes in Richardson's story, they put him through the ringer, yet he held up to questioning.

The authorities much prefer professional opinion as opposed to witness testimony. Macdonald's preference would be no different, if he was aware of Dr. Bond's estimated time of death (between 1:00-2:00 am) he may have judged all the witness testimony against Bond's professional opinion.
This would mean he might lean towards believing Cox.

[Pierre]

I mentioned this before, the Star newspaper was present at the inquest, but they left during Prater's testimony.
The reporter had just heard Cox's testimony, and he left, they went to press that afternoon with a sub-title, THE MURDERER DESCRIBED. where they provide Cox's description of Kelly's client.

On the one hand this demonstrates how untrustworthy the Star was, they will invent a story before considering the whole inquest testimony.
They missed Lewis, Dr Phillips, VanTurney, Harvey, Abberline, etc.

However, the reporter may also have picked up on Macdonald's attitude, something that cannot always be captured by the written coverage of the days proceedings.
Macdonald did appear to fire more questions at Cox than any other witness, which may betray his inclinations towards the time of death.

The reliable newspapers!

[David Orsam]

Yes, could he have been an accessory after the fact?
This loiterer may have been connected to a time of death between 1:00-2:00, afterall, it might have taken most of an hour to mutilate the body to such a degree.

So the Coroner had decided that Kelly was murdered about an hour before Kennedy said she saw Kelly in the street? And before Prater and Lewis heard a cry of murder? And long before Maxwell saw her?

But you told me in the plainest terms only a few posts ago:

"by calling Mrs Maxwell to testify to seeing Kelly after 9:00 am, then clearly Kelly had to be alive at 3:00 am."

So now I'm confused. Given that the Coroner did call Maxwell to testify to seeing Kelly alive after 9:00am, how is that Kelly possibly turns out to NOT be alive at 3:00am?

[David Orsam]

"Progress"?

"We"?

Ah sorry Fisherman, I forgot that you have already solved the murders so there is obviously no further progress to be made.

[David Orsam]

The authorities much prefer professional opinion as opposed to witness testimony. Macdonald's preference would be no different, if he was aware of Dr. Bond's estimated time of death (between 1:00-2:00 am) he may have judged all the witness testimony against Bond's professional opinion.
This would mean he might lean towards believing Cox.

Is that how it worked in 1888 then Jon? Coroners formed their own theories as to time of death before an inquest and then didn't bother to call witnesses whose evidence conflicted with that theory?