Hutchinsons statement....

[harry]

Fisherman,
I'm still sailing.

[harry]

There is nothing in his wording to indicate one way or another.
But there is,the word so.
Used to indicate an extreme,such as,Ít w as raining so hard'.He was so tall etc,etc.

[Wickerman]

Didn't Hutchinson say,Á man so well dressed'.Meaning a cut above the neighberhood? How could he tell it was astrakhan? Myself, I can't distinguish types of fur even in daylight.

The collar & cuffs of this childs coat is Astrachan, similar to sheep's wool, so not a fur as such.



Anyone think that child is a toff, well-dressed, respectable?

[Wickerman]

That's what I alluded to Jon, the ability to present oneself as a cut above the neighborhood. The description of that man matches either possibility, actual means or the representation of such. He was not shabby genteel or something to that effect, as was earlier suggested.

When you live in the lowest of the low areas of London, what condition would your clothes need to be in to look better off than the locals?

[Sam Flynn]

Anyone think that child is a toff, well-dressed, respectable?

Where's his massive gold chain, and a fob set with a red stone, Jon? To say nothing of his spats and horseshoe tie-pin.

[Sam Flynn]

When you live in the lowest of the low areas of London, what condition would your clothes need to be in to look better off than the locals?

You're playing it down again, Jon. It won't wash, I'm afraid. No matter how valiant the attempts to play it down, the fact is that Hutchinson clearly described a surprisingly well-attired man. Doesn't Hutchinson even admit as much outside the description itself: "I was surprised to see someone so well dressed", or words to that effect?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I'm still sailing.

In a bathtub? Ship ohoy!

[David Orsam]

I forgot to reply to this challenge...

"Mrs. M'Carthy, the landlady, might easily have seen the murderer as he passed out of the court, but she observes a strict reticence, having apparently been cautioned by the police."
http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

Unfortunately, you’ve selected a press report that is rather unlikely to be correct. Mrs McCarthy wasn’t called to the inquest so it's very questionable that she passed out of the court during the early hours of the morning, let alone saw the killer. Consequently, her supposed "reticence" in speaking to the press will be easily explained by the fact that she had nothing to say to them.

I was interested in what led you to believe the police did not have the authority to caution a witness?

I am amused that you phrase your question like this because what I said on the subject was basically the same question in reverse to which I received no answer. Thus in #653 I asked:

"What authority or powers did they, or anyone, have to caution potential witnesses at an inquest against speaking to the press?"

Let me put that into its full context:

"At best, the police could only have requested. What authority or powers did they, or anyone, have to caution potential witnesses at an inquest against speaking to the press? And if they did make such requests how come it's so secret that we don't have any examples of witnesses saying that such requests had been made of them?"

So I was asking what authority the police had to caution a witness. I don’t recall you or anyone ever offering a response.

Newspapers often write a lot of twaddle about police procedure. Take the word "caution". What does it mean? Request is one thing. But what happens if a witness ignores a "caution". Tell me? Do they get arrested? Charged? Well what’s the charge? There isn’t one is there? Obstructing the course of justice? Has anyone ever been charged with such an offence in this context? I don't think so. So "caution" can’t be the right word unless they are making false threats.

I can’t say it’s impossible that a police officer could have made such a false threat with a hint of menace, i.e. "Don’t speak to the press or you’ll get in trouble" but if they can’t back it up it’s pretty meaningless. That’s why you need to prove that either such a request, or such threats, were actually genuinely made because you are the one making the assertion. I can hardly be expected to prove a negative of this type.

[David Orsam]

That is not what I was saying.
Dr. Bond was at Millers Court on Saturday subsequent to the autopsy, along with Philips. Both gentlemen were accompanied by the police, and Macdonald.
As Phillips, Bond & Macdonald were all police surgeons it would be impractical to suggest they did not discuss the medical evidence between them.

Firstly I want to put you to strict proof on your assertion that Bond was at Millers Court on the Saturday subsequent to the autopsy.

So far you have provided a newspaper report that Philips and Bond were together at the autopsy on Saturday morning. Then you have provided another report that Phillips and Macdonald were present at Miller's Court at some point on the Saturday. But you have not made good the claim that all three men were ever in the same room at any time.

Secondly, even if you were to make good on this, it is speculation of the highest order that the three of them discussed the time of death. Dr Phillips was the divisional surgeon and he reported to the Coroner. Whether Bond offered his opinion to the Coroner can only be guesswork.

I'm prepared to assume for the purpose of argument that Phillips and Bond came to roughly the same conclusion but that conclusion must be that neither of them could rule out a murder at 3am even if they thought that the probability was 1-2am. Therefore I cannot see how the Coroner could possibly have discarded or ignored any evidence suggesting that the murder was at 3am.

[Wickerman]

Unfortunately, you’ve selected a press report that is rather unlikely to be correct. Mrs McCarthy wasn’t called to the inquest so it's very questionable that she passed out of the court during the early hours of the morning, let alone saw the killer. Consequently, her supposed "reticence" in speaking to the press will be easily explained by the fact that she had nothing to say to them.

On the contrary, what the article suggests is that Mrs McCarthy was interviewed along with many other persons.
Do you recall this press statement?
"As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin."
Echo, Nov. 13th.

Mrs McCarthy could easily have been one of these fifty three witnesses. Not all of them are expected to appear at the inquest.
Yet all may have been treated in the same way, that is, cautioned by the officer.

Strange coincidence that a journalist just happened to "invent" a scenario that I have read about several times before.
I'm just a little perplexed that you are making an issue over something I took to be common knowledge.

So I was asking what authority the police had to caution a witness. I don’t recall you or anyone ever offering a response.

The same authority they observed when they blocked entry to Millers Court against the press & the general public.
Why would the authority be any different?

Newspapers often write a lot of twaddle about police procedure. Take the word "caution". What does it mean?

Read the Police Code, it will explain what "caution" means.

[David Orsam]

On the contrary, what the article suggests is that Mrs McCarthy was interviewed along with many other persons.
Do you recall this press statement?
"As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin."
Echo, Nov. 13th.

Mrs McCarthy could easily have been one of these fifty three witnesses. Not all of them are expected to appear at the inquest.
Yet all may have been treated in the same way, that is, cautioned by the officer.

Strange coincidence that a journalist just happened to "invent" a scenario that I have read about several times before.
I'm just a little perplexed that you are making an issue over something I took to be common knowledge.

I'm not saying that Mrs McCarthy wasn't interviewed. I'm saying that there is no good reason to believe that she passed out of the court in the early hours, let alone saw the killer. If she wasn't speaking to the press then it follows that they knew nothing about what she did or saw.

If you took it to be "common knowledge" that police either requested or instructed potential witnesses not to speak to the press, then it rather looks like you were making an assumption based on the thinnest of "evidence". I can't be held responsible for that.

[David Orsam]

The same authority they observed when they blocked entry to Millers Court against the press & the general public.
Why would the authority be any different?

But one can find authority in the Police Code under 'Murder', viz:

"The senior officer of police present must allow no person to approach the place where the crime was committed..."

So there was clear authority to prevent anyone approaching 13 Miller's Court.

[David Orsam]

Read the Police Code, it will explain what "caution" means.

Are you just joking with me now Jon?

Strange that you haven't quoted from the Police Code yourself.

I think the reason you haven't done so becomes perfectly obvious once one looks at what it says:

"Cautions - When any offence is prevalent in a particular locality, or there is a need for any special care on the part of the householders, bankers, or any trade a cautionary notice in concise and moderate language, may be most advantageously issued under the authority of the chief of police to put people on their guard."

Is that what you meant Jon?

That's talking about an official warning to possible victims of crime to take care in areas where there is a high level of crime.

It's got nothing to do with what we are talking about.

There is, of course, an entry pertaining to cautioning a prisoner but that's a different matter entirely.

So, where, Jon do we find anything in the police code which provides authority to the police to warn potential witnesses at an inquest not to speak to the press?

[David Orsam]

On the contrary, what the article suggests is that Mrs McCarthy was interviewed along with many other persons.
Do you recall this press statement?
"As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin."
Echo, Nov. 13th.

Mrs McCarthy could easily have been one of these fifty three witnesses.

Just to add that your whole thesis is contradictory. You think that Mrs McCarthy, who gave a statement to the police but did not give evidence at the inquest, was warned not to speak to the press and obeyed that warning (even though her husband did speak to them) but Mrs Kennedy, who also gave a statement to the police but did not give evidence at the inquest, was perfectly free and happy to say whatever she wanted to the Press Association!

Elizabeth Prater, on your view, is told that she can say whatever she wants to the press but on no account should she mention the cry of murder during the night while Mrs Kennedy is let loose to tell the world all about the cry of murder that she heard during the night!

None of it makes any sense.

[Wickerman]

Firstly I want to put you to strict proof on your assertion that Bond was at Millers Court on the Saturday subsequent to the autopsy.

Be my guest.
Though judging by your response below, I think you misread the reports.

So far you have provided a newspaper report that Philips and Bond were together at the autopsy on Saturday morning. Then you have provided another report that Phillips and Macdonald were present at Miller's Court at some point on the Saturday. But you have not made good the claim that all three men were ever in the same room at any time.

We all know Phillips & Bond were together at the autopsy Saturday morning, I made no reference to that fact.
My quotes were solely concerned with Saturday afternoon, and the sifting of the ashes in the grate.
What I wrote was:

Dr. Phillips and Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the district, visited Miller's court, and after the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen.

Here Dr's Phillips & Bond are mentioned in the same activity:

Examining the ashes with the assistance of Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, for the presence of any fatty matter, or any trace of burnt flesh.

Here is another account:
Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moor, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.

No press account mention all three gentlemen together, which justifies the need to collate press accounts to obtain a clearer understanding of events.
All accounts taken together demonstrate that Phillips, Bond, Macdonald, and police officials all attended the sifting of the ashes on Saturday afternoon.

Secondly, even if you were to make good on this, it is speculation of the highest order that the three of them discussed the time of death. Dr Phillips was the divisional surgeon and he reported to the Coroner. Whether Bond offered his opinion to the Coroner can only be guesswork.

Pretty much everything we debate is guesswork. Which includes your 'belief' that Lewis & Kennedy were the same person. Though you intentionally steered clear away from insisting on 'proof' to support your argument on that subject I notice.
The time of death is of the utmost importance to this investigation. In no way can you argue that it would be "speculation of the highest order" for these three professionals not to discuss the matter - it is entirely within their experience as police surgeons to do so.

I'm prepared to assume for the purpose of argument that Phillips and Bond came to roughly the same conclusion but that conclusion must be that neither of them could rule out a murder at 3am even if they thought that the probability was 1-2am. Therefore I cannot see how the Coroner could possibly have discarded or ignored any evidence suggesting that the murder was at 3am.

More than that, and we have a clue along that line.

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

"Nearly every conclusion".
Not one limited to any theorized death about 3:00 am, be that right or wrong.
Macdonald does not need to be alone with Dr. Bond, if Dr. Phillips also shared the same conclusion as was expressed by Bond in his report to Anderson/Warren.