Hutchinsons statement....

[Sam Flynn]

Pretty much everything we debate is guesswork. Which includes your 'belief' that Lewis & Kennedy were the same person.

That's not guesswork at all, but an almost inevitable conclusion based on the extreme unlikelihood that there were two different women who witnessed ostensibly the same events during the week and on the night of the murder, both of whom ended up heading to Miller's Court at about the same ungodly time, to sleep with relatives/friends in a room opposite Kelly's.

The contrary idea, namely that Kennedy and Lewis were different women, is the one that seems to be more of a 'belief', and quite possibly one of the the blind faith variety.

[David Orsam]

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.

I agree with you. Phillips would have spoken to Bond and then Phillips reported to the Coroner. I see no need for Bond to have spoken to the Coroner at all.

That was the exact point I making in #1049 response to you saying of the Coroner "He has already read the evidence (ie; witness statements), so he knew there wasn't anything of value to contest Dr. Bond" to which I said "Well hold on, I think you must mean Dr Phillips. Bond was giving a report to Anderson not the Coroner."

All you are doing is inventing a conversation between the Coroner and Bond about time of death whereas I can only see such a conversation having taken place (if there ever was such a conversation as opposed to it being included in the autopsy report) between Phillips and the Coroner, no doubt after Phillips and Bond had spoken.

[Wickerman]

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.

Another example of you not taking in what you read.
The quote did not say McCarthy passed out of the court, as you put it.
It suggests she might have seen him "as he passed out of the court". We are not enlightened as to her location at the time, so there is no basis to criticize her on that point.

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.

A "reasonable deduction" is one for which there is some indication in support of that deduction - as opposed to mere speculation.
Given the reluctance of the police to share anything of consequence with the press, it only stands to reason when a witness resorts to the same reluctance it will best be noted by this same press, not necessarily in any official paperwork.

[Wickerman]

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.

Yes, absolutely, and the authority (for want of a better term) is the same.

If you read through the whole section you see that the concern is with the preservation of evidence. Not the forensic kind we are most familiar with today, but footprints, and the location of certain artifacts.
A Jury is often instructed not to talk to anyone outside the jury room about a case, the reason is much the same.

The authority may best be identified as "the preservation of evidence", which can be recognised in witness statements where, once a statement is given to police it becomes "evidence". And, in order to preserve the integrity of that evidence, depending on how serious it may be to the case in question, a "caution/request" may be made to the witness not to jeopardize the integrity of his/her testimony by discussing her story with anyone before an inquest.

As witness statements vary from the mundane to highly incriminating, it is only in important cases where we come across suggestions of this nature.

[Wickerman]

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?

In an earlier post you were questioning the colloquial use of the term "caution". I thought you just need to read the police interpretation of that term.
If I recall you were criticizing how the press used "caution", but as we cannot know where they got it from then how do you know who to 'attack'?

An interviewing officer may have use "caution" when speaking to Mrs McCarthy (assuming the account is true).
Or, Mrs McCarthy may have used "caution" when explaining why she is not sharing her story. Then again the use of "caution" may have been the choice of the journalist in composing his article.
As we do not know who used it first then what basis is there for dismissing the account for erroneous usage?

[Wickerman]

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.

Your summary comes across as intentionally obtuse.
The need for requesting a witness not to discuss their 'evidence' with anyone (if and when it is required), is applied equally to Prater, Lewis, the McCarthy's, Mrs Kennedy, Cox, VanTurney, etc. Perhaps all of them, depending on the seriousness of their statements.

The police already know that not all the witnesses are going to be called to the inquest, but how does that impact the need to make the request?
Because Mrs Kennedy paid no attention to any possible request only demonstrates that not everyone decided to be so wiling to comply.

What is it that "makes no sense" about that?
I would have thought it merely reflects human nature.

[Sam Flynn]

Taken across from "Local killer for local people" thread

Yes, it's off-topic but misguided. Muggings did happen, attacks on strangers walking through the streets at night did happen. Possessions taken from these victims did happen.
These victims had to be there for these crimes to take place, right?
According to you they would not there because no-one would be so stupid to risk their safety, so how come these victims exist?

John Kolinsky, a German, walking through Commercial Rd. at 4:30 am on Feb. 12th, 1888 was seized by the throat and struck a violent blow to the eye, accomplices cut his pockets and removed £4 14s from him.

A man attacked in Wellclose Sq., his watch stolen. Nathan Henry was attacked in Turner St. after midnight and was relieved of his possessions, 4s.

Are we told whether Kolinsky or Henry were conspicuously attired, to the extent that they might have been said to be advertising their wealth?

[David Orsam]

The quote did not say McCarthy passed out of the court, as you put it.
It suggests she might have seen him "as he passed out of the court". We are not enlightened as to her location at the time, so there is no basis to criticize her on that point.

I'm happy to rephrase: there is no good reason to believe she saw anyone passing out of the court, let alone the killer.

[David Orsam]

And, in order to preserve the integrity of that evidence, depending on how serious it may be to the case in question, a "caution/request" may be made to the witness not to jeopardize the integrity of his/her testimony by discussing her story with anyone before an inquest.

Well I said from the start that the police could, in theory, request witnesses not to speak to the press (your new formulation of "caution/request" merely amuses me) - and I was objecting to your claim that they could instruct them to do so - but that's plainly not what happened here, in November 1888, because of the number of witnesses that DID speak to the press.

Where you have gone wrong is to think that the police would have said to selected witnesses "oh yes, feel free to speak to the press but please don't mention (a), (b) and (c")". Especially where one of those things not to mention is a cry of murder in circumstances where one of the witnesses (Mrs Kennedy) who, in your view, has also given a statement is free to blab whatever she wants to the press, including about the cry of murder.

In short, you have noted that Prater didn't, apparently, mention the cry of murder to the press and have drawn a false conclusion from that fact.

[David Orsam]

In an earlier post you were questioning the colloquial use of the term "caution". I thought you just need to read the police interpretation of that term.
If I recall you were criticizing how the press used "caution", but as we cannot know where they got it from then how do you know who to 'attack'?

Well I know what the word "caution" means Jon, I thought you were telling me that I would find assistance from the Police Code about how it would apply to inquest witnesses, but it doesn't.

What I said about the press is that they often write a lot of twaddle about police procedure and "caution" cannot be the correct word.

[David Orsam]

An interviewing officer may have use "caution" when speaking to Mrs McCarthy (assuming the account is true).

Well I very much doubt that Jon but, if he did, he was plainly using the word wrongly and, to the extent that he was suggesting there would be a sanction applied against McCarthy for speaking to the press, he would have been bluffing.

[David Orsam]

Your summary comes across as intentionally obtuse.
The need for requesting a witness not to discuss their 'evidence' with anyone (if and when it is required), is applied equally to Prater, Lewis, the McCarthy's, Mrs Kennedy, Cox, VanTurney, etc. Perhaps all of them, depending on the seriousness of their statements.

The police already know that not all the witnesses are going to be called to the inquest, but how does that impact the need to make the request?
Because Mrs Kennedy paid no attention to any possible request only demonstrates that not everyone decided to be so wiling to comply.

What is it that "makes no sense" about that?
I would have thought it merely reflects human nature.

So where we have witnesses speaking to the press, your interpretation of that is they simply have ignored the "caution/request" that you think they must have been given?

And where we have witnesses supposedly not telling the press everything that they then tell the coroner, that is due to them having been asked to withhold certain facts?

Well if that's what you want to believe I can't stop you but it seems to me to fall into the category of fantasy.

[Wickerman]

That's not guesswork at all, but an almost inevitable conclusion based on the extreme unlikelihood that there were two different women who witnessed ostensibly the same events during the week and on the night of the murder, both of whom ended up heading to Miller's Court at about the same ungodly time, to sleep with relatives/friends in a room opposite Kelly's.

"Ostensibly"?
A reflection of the perpetual attempt to whitewash the distinct differences between the Friday morning accounts of these two women.

The contrary idea, namely that Kennedy and Lewis were different women, is the one that seems to be more of a 'belief', and quite possibly one of the the blind faith variety.

There was no suggestion at the time that Kennedy & Lewis were the same. This is a purely modern hypothesis, fueled in recent years by a refusal to accept that a woman she claimed to see - Mary Kelly, may have been alive and out on the streets around 3:00 am.

[Wickerman]

All you are doing is inventing a conversation between the Coroner and Bond about time of death whereas I can only see such a conversation having taken place (if there ever was such a conversation as opposed to it being included in the autopsy report) between Phillips and the Coroner, no doubt after Phillips and Bond had spoken.

As there is no written opinion from any of these medical men suggesting a later time of death around 3:00 am, then any one of us will need to invent a conversation regardless what time of death we as individuals support.
That being the case, what is your point in making that comment?

[David Orsam]

There was no suggestion at the time that Kennedy & Lewis were the same.

Why do you keep saying that Jon? No-one said they were different people at the time did they? So how do you think this is a valid point?

When the Kennedy story was published it was prior the inquest so no-one knew about the existence of Sarah Lewis. So why should anyone have commented on the subject?