Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

First I do not know of any official order that witnesses in the murder series can't talk.

What do you mean, you have never heard that the police ask the witnesses not to talk in any important case, or just this case?
Or do you mean you have never heard of this in your life in any case?
I mean, because I have heard this done lots of times, it's just part of the process. I can't speak for today, so many rights/rules have changed over the years.

Today we mostly hear of this restriction imposed on a jury, not to talk about the case with anyone. However, the reasoning is the same, and if the coroner in 1888 learned that a witness had talked about what they saw then he could eliminate them from giving evidence.
(I have to wonder if this was the root of the problem why Schwartz did not appear at the Stride inquest).

But I don't believe some in the crowd would not have questions.I have witnessed car accidents,knife fights,people brandishing guns -threatening,assaults and people,some strangers, stay and asked questions.And this is not even a murder.

That is not the issue.
People will gossip, especially with anyone who was in some way involved. The press published many accounts of gossip over that weekend. So, yes, as I've said before, there was a great deal of gossip.
The issue is, what was this gossip?

The press had no inside sources, the police were telling them nothing, so all they had to publish was the street gossip, and none of those critical details appear in any press accounts - that, is the central issue.

[Wickerman]

And, of course, Kelly's was the latest in a sequence of highly publicised and talked-about murders, the biggest such sensation London had ever seen. The jungle grapevine would have been buzzing with stories and speculation, that's for sure.

I've scoured the weekend press from cover to cover and read all the gossip. There are no accurate accounts of what took place that night, by accurate I mean consistent with what we learn at the inquest. Which, strongly indicates none of the witnesses gossiped about what they saw in those few critical hours.

[Wickerman]

How very curious. Only a short time ago, in#630, you told me the answer to my question as to whether it was the first and last time we read of two and three screams was "yes". In fact, it was so obviously "yes" that you felt it didn't need saying because "we both know the answer was "yes"". Now that answer, it seems, has magically transformed into "no" and it wasn't the last time.

Somehow you seem to think that two or three screams of murder is equivalent to a single cry of murder and a couple of faint gasps of "oh!".

I don't when a faint gasp became the same thing as a scream in the English language and I also don't know when the word "oh!" became the equivalent of the word "murder!".

You don't need to play your cat and mouse games with me David, I am well able for you.
I pointed out the intention of my initial post, now you have been made aware of what was meant.
Accept it and deal with what we are talking about, or move on.

[Wickerman]

Absolutely.

Interest on Joe Barnett.His last day was Saturday,the 10th.

"I have found a press account today which states that Barnett's leaving of Buller's was not voluntary. This is part of a long article in Freeman's Journal (Dublin) of 12 November 1888
The relevant passage reads:
"Inquiries for the man Barnett, who had lived with the murdered woman, at Buller's Lodging House, New Street, Bishopsgate Street, have been so numerous that the landlord states he has turned Barnett out of his house, his presence there having become a nuisance."

Chris Scott

Yes, this article suggests the press & police interest in the movements of Barnett has drawn so much attention and disruption that the landlord told Barnett to go live somewhere else.

[David Orsam]

You don't need to play your cat and mouse games with me David, I am well able for you.
I pointed out the intention of my initial post, now you have been made aware of what was meant.
Accept it and deal with what we are talking about, or move on.

I'm still not entirely sure whether the correct answer you wanted to give to my original question was "yes" or "no" but I would comment that the inference you draw from the newspaper reports that Prater was instructed by the police not to the talk to the press is very dubious.

I mean, that wasn't even the instruction because, according to you, the police must have told or what she could say to the press and what she couldn't say, even though they had absolutely no legal authority to give her any such instructions either way. And she seems to have gone further by providing some disinformation (or lying) by saying that she heard nothing during the night. Do we infer from this that she was following police instructions or was she acting off her own bat?

Find some positive evidence, not inference, that police actually did instruct witnesses not to speak to the press and you might have a point but where we have a person whose 'official' story changed in significant points of detail within three days, the fact that she might have told the newspapers another story in the intervening period can be explained by any number of factors which have nothing to do with police instructions.

[Sam Flynn]

I've scoured the weekend press from cover to cover and read all the gossip. There are no accurate accounts of what took place that night, by accurate I mean consistent with what we learn at the inquest.

No. There are CLEAR echoes of Sarah Lewis's testimony in the "Kennedy" stories and others, and we know that several women were picking up "Kennedy's" story and passing it off as their own. Even if this hadn't been reported in the press, it wouldn't take a genius to work out that gossip was circulating widely and wildly, because it always does!

Which, strongly indicates none of the witnesses gossiped about what they saw in those few critical hours.

This is unlikely to the point of absurdity. Besides, even if the witnesses didn't, they most likely confided in their friends - which people do! - and they could easily have let things fall into the rumour mill. Even if that didn't happen, friends of a friend of a friend of a friend would have picked up on something, and even complete strangers could have picked up and run with a story that wasn't really theirs to tell in the first place. What's more, it's very apparent from the "Kennedy" coverage that this was precisely what was going on!

Bits of Lewis's story were out there, whether she purposely leaked them or not. That much should be self-evident to anyone with an ounce of objectivity.

[Sam Flynn]

Find some positive evidence, not inference, that police actually did instruct witnesses not to speak to the press...

Even if the witnesses were thus cautioned, there was nothing preventing their friends and acquaintances from blabbing. Equally, there was nothing preventing the witnesses themselves from reading stuff in the press (or hearing bits of gossip) and weaving it into their own narratives, even their sworn testimony at an inquest. That might shock some people, but it's a real possibility.

[David Orsam]

Even if the witnesses were thus cautioned

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?

I just don't think it's possible to draw the speculative inference that Jon seems to think can be drawn from the single example provided.

[Varqm]

What do you mean, you have never heard that the police ask the witnesses not to talk in any important case, or just this case?
Or do you mean you have never heard of this in your life in any case?
I mean, because I have heard this done lots of times, it's just part of the process. I can't speak for today, so many rights/rules have changed over the years.

Today we mostly hear of this restriction imposed on a jury, not to talk about the case with anyone. However, the reasoning is the same, and if the coroner in 1888 learned that a witness had talked about what they saw then he could eliminate them from giving evidence.
(I have to wonder if this was the root of the problem why Schwartz did not appear at the Stride inquest).




That is not the issue.
People will gossip, especially with anyone who was in some way involved. The press published many accounts of gossip over that weekend. So, yes, as I've said before, there was a great deal of gossip.
The issue is, what was this gossip?

The press had no inside sources, the police were telling them nothing, so all they had to publish was the street gossip, and none of those critical details appear in any press accounts - that, is the central issue.

Don't just ramble and lie.

Today yes but 1888 England/UK? I believe,as used in courts ,in US it started in the 1960's.

In the reports below, (might not be accurate in the details) BUT clearly witnesses were talking to reporters and these were in the 10th, a day after the murder and 2 days before the inquest.And yes Prater mentioned the cry "Oh murder" or "Murder".These witnesses,Barnett,Prater for ex. were not allowed in the inquest because they talked?
These are just reporters trying to talk to witnesses,how about curious people,neighbors.



Joe Barnett interview.

The Star
Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom.
LONDON. SATURDAY, 10 NOVEMBER, 1888.

[Abby Normal]

I've scoured the weekend press from cover to cover and read all the gossip. There are no accurate accounts of what took place that night, by accurate I mean consistent with what we learn at the inquest. Which, strongly indicates none of the witnesses gossiped about what they saw in those few critical hours.

What?

[Wickerman]

I'm still not entirely sure whether the correct answer you wanted to give to my original question was "yes" or "no" .....

Once again, it was "yes".
Praters statement to the interviewing officer was that she heard "two screams". This was the first and last time she stated definitively that there were "two screams".
Only in the Echo, after the inquest, do we read of her testimony verbatim where she describes what she heard. Whether you choose to interpret an "Oh, Oh" as two screams is entirely up to you. No other press account allows such an interpretation, take it or leave it. I am not concerned either way. what I am concerned with is the apparent fact that Prater avoided saying anything to the press over that weekend about hearing anything in the night.

....but I would comment that the inference you draw from the newspaper reports that Prater was instructed by the police not to the talk to the press is very dubious.

That's your prerogative.

I mean, that wasn't even the instruction because, according to you, the police must have told or what she could say to the press and what she couldn't say,...

Why, explain why a simple "please do not speak of what you heard during the night, before the inquest", is not clear enough?

.....even though they had absolutely no legal authority to give her any such instructions either way.

I would question that assertion, but regardless, a police request does not require legal authority.

And she seems to have gone further by providing some disinformation (or lying) by saying that she heard nothing during the night. Do we infer from this that she was following police instructions or was she acting off her own bat?

Even the police were known to give the press the brush-off with false information, what are you implying, that this would be so shocking for Prater to do the same?

Find some positive evidence, not inference, that police actually did instruct witnesses not to speak to the press and you might have a point but where we have a person whose 'official' story changed in significant points of detail within three days, the fact that she might have told the newspapers another story in the intervening period can be explained by any number of factors which have nothing to do with police instructions.

No, my post distinctly said "I can offer you an example", that is what I did.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=416779&postcount=621

You can take it or leave it.

[David Orsam]

Once again, it was "yes".
Praters statement to the interviewing officer was that she heard "two screams". This was the first and last time she stated definitively that there were "two screams".
Only in the Echo, after the inquest, do we read of her testimony verbatim where she describes what she heard. Whether you choose to interpret an "Oh, Oh" as two screams is entirely up to you. No other press account allows such an interpretation, take it or leave it. I am not concerned either way. what I am concerned with is the apparent fact that Prater avoided saying anything to the press over that weekend about hearing anything in the night.

But what I'm concerned with is whether Prater ever told anyone she heard two (or more) screams after telling the police she did on 9 November. It seems we both agree that she did not. Even to the coroner. So I go back to my original question as to whether she did this at the request of the police, because that is one possible inference if you think she was being manipulated by them.

[David Orsam]

Why, explain why a simple "please do not speak of what you heard during the night, before the inquest", is not clear enough?

But why would the police isolate this part of her evidence and ask her not to speak to the press about it? What's so special about her hearing a scream in the night?

Did they ask all witnesses not to speak to the press about specific parts of their evidence or was it just Prater do you think?

[David Orsam]

I would question that assertion

On what basis?

[David Orsam]

Even the police were known to give the press the brush-off with false information, what are you implying, that this would be so shocking for Prater to do the same?

Jon, please think about this for a moment. You are suggesting that the police would be happy for a witness, at their express request, to tell a lie to a newspaper, saying that she heard no scream, and then 24 or 48 hours later, come and say the direct opposite under oath to a coroner's jury who had possibly read the very newspaper in which the same witness had told that false story?

And then when perhaps a member of the jury asks the witness about it, the witness, still under oath, says "oh the police told me to lie to the press".

Now that would go down very well with the public and the Home Office wouldn't it?