Hutchinsons statement....

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I'm still sailing.

In a bathtub? Ship ohoy!

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I'm still sailing.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Don't know what you mean.My mention was about 3am.Cox says that was the time she last came home.Lewis arrived about 2.30.Hutchinson was,according to Lewis.on the other side of the street.

[Wickerman]

Au contraire. The jewellery alone is remarkable enough.

Isaacs wore a gold chain - a fake gold chain. He probably nicked it, like everything else he owned.

Was the jewelry worn by Astrachan fake, or real?