Severed leg

[Pierre]

At the Pinchin Street inquest the coroner said:

- I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street?

What is this?

source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_pinchin.html

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

At the Pinchin Street inquest the coroner said

(http://www.casebook.org/official_doc..._pinchin.html):

- I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street?

Mary Kelly's legs were still very much attached to her body, albeit somewhat defleshed in the thigh area.

[Pierre]

Mary Kelly's legs were still very much attached to her body, albeit somewhat defleshed in the thigh area.

Yes, so what is he referring to?

[John G]

Yes, so what is he referring to?

Who knows? Probably confused.

[Pierre]

Who knows? Probably confused.

No. Phillips did not contradict it.

[Abby Normal]

No. Phillips did not contradict it.

they were both confused

[John G]

they were both confused

Quite possibly, Abby! Although to be fair, Dr Phillips was probably confused by the question.

[Flower and Dean]

Dr. Phillips replies:

Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case. The savagery shown by the mutilated remains in the Dorset-street case far exceeded that shown in this case. The mutilations in the Dorset-street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body. I wish to say that these are mere points that strike me without any comparative study of the other case, except those afforded by partial notes that I have with me. I think in this case there has been greater knowledge shown in regard to the construction of the parts composing the spine, and on the whole there has been a greater knowledge shown of how to separate a joint.

I've bolded the relevant parts.

He's not agreeing that Mary Jane Kelly's leg was severed. He doesn't correct the coroner on that point but he doesn't mention the leg at all. The only specifics he mentions as being similar are related to the neck and spine, not to Mary Jane Kelley's leg.

It sounds to me like either he didn't remember whether Mary Jane Kelly's leg had been severed so he didn't mention it, or knew from his read that it hadn't been but forgot to directly state that.

[jerryd]

The Evening News says this in their report of the inquest:

The Evening News and Post, Sept 24, 1889

Coroner:

....He then again asked Dr. Phillips whether there was any similarity between the cutting up of the body in this case and that in the Dorset Street case...

[Sam Flynn]

The Evening News and Post, Sept 24, 1889

....He then again asked Dr. Phillips whether there was any similarity between the cutting up of the body in this case and that in the Dorset Street case...

Another object lesson in the inerrancy (not!) of the press

[jerryd]

Another object lesson in the inerrancy (not!) of the press

Agreed, Sam.

Just another reason to compare as many inquest reports (press) as possible and try to reach a reasonable explanation for a particular statement based on ALL the reports.

[GUT]

Another object lesson in the inerrancy (not!) of the press

Cases I'm involved in are often reported in the press. How often they get things wrong is staggering.

[SwedishArchaeologist]

I recently noted a Swedish newspaper report on the death of Elizabeth Stride that claimed she had been beheaded, which clearly isn't the case. A bit similar to this.

[Wickerman]

Cases I'm involved in are often reported in the press. How often they get things wrong is staggering.

Hi GUT.

Just because the issue of newspaper stories can sometimes be contentious here with respect to the Whitechapel murders, I would like to ask for a little clarification on the point you just made.

I tend to separate newspaper stories on these crimes into three categories, others may disagree, but;
- First, we have Inquest coverage, which is regarded by most, if not all serious researchers as among thee most reliable sources for information on a case.
- Second we have statements by witnesses given directly to the press, which as a reliable source is more open to dispute. The witness could be exaggerating, or the journalist could hype-up the account, or simply make honest mistakes, which include selective editing which may unintentionally distort the story in some way.
- Third we have the opinion of the newspaper itself. One example in the Star is the column entitled 'What we think'. There are other section of crime reporting where they just make unsubstantiated claims or unsourced reports in order to convey an opinion.

So, when you say above, that the press "get things wrong". I see that as an extremely generic statement that could be used by anyone else to criticize newspaper reports in general. Somehow, I suspect what you observed is more applicable to the Third option I listed, in some rare cases the Second?, but hardly ever, or never, the First?
Can you help clarify?

[GUT]

Hi GUT.

Just because the issue of newspaper stories can sometimes be contentious here with respect to the Whitechapel murders, I would like to ask for a little clarification on the point you just made.

I tend to separate newspaper stories on these crimes into three categories, others may disagree, but;
- First, we have Inquest coverage, which is regarded by most, if not all serious researchers as among thee most reliable sources for information on a case.
- Second we have statements by witnesses given directly to the press, which as a reliable source is more open to dispute. The witness could be exaggerating, or the journalist could hype-up the account, or simply make honest mistakes, which include selective editing which may unintentionally distort the story in some way.
- Third we have the opinion of the newspaper itself. One example in the Star is the column entitled 'What we think'. There are other section of crime reporting where they just make unsubstantiated claims or unsourced reports in order to convey an opinion.

So, when you say above, that the press "get things wrong". I see that as an extremely generic statement that could be used by anyone else to criticize newspaper reports in general. Somehow, I suspect what you observed is more applicable to the Third option I listed, in some rare cases the Second?, but hardly ever, or never, the First?
Can you help clarify?

Unfortunately Jon, no I've seen matters that I am appearing in misreported in all three categories. In that...

1. Actual statements made in the witnessbox being mis reported I'll give you one example that is a basic example but also true

Q. So sir, was that on the Tuesday?
A. Yes Tues...... no, no it was actually the Monday.

Reported in the press as being on the Tuesday.

I remember that one well, because a lot turned on the answer if it was Tuesday there should have been one result in the case, if Monday a totally different result.

2. It's not really possible to say if the press got it wrong or not (unless you were there when the statement was made) but it is galling when you are the one being quoted and they still get it wrong.

Q by press: Will your client plead guilty

A. Until a complete psychological assessment can be carried out I can't say.

Report: he said he was confident that his client would be found not guilty by reason of mental disability.

3. Well opinion is opinion is opinion and provided they make it 110% clear that it is only opinion I have no problems, it's when they state opinion as unassailable fact that it becomes an issue.