Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Yes, but the damn thing is, Hutchinson says the same thing elsewhere.

    "They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes."
    Police statement.

    "They stood at the corner of Miller's-court for about three minutes"

    Press intervew.

    So it seems like that is probably what he said, we can't blame the press for the wrong words.
    I suppose, then, that "the corner of the Court" meant the entrance to Miller's Court.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      It is highly unlikely that, out of those 10-20 people, only 4 had anything to offer the inquest - and, of those, not much - and that "several" more came forward after the inquest. Were they all street-walkers? If not, what on earth were they doing wandering about the streets like the Night of the Zombies, between 2-3 AM on the morning of Kelly's death? And, if they were (notice, that's another "if"), how likely is it that "several" of them would have seen and recognised her?
      It's this highly subjective reply that I am questioning.
      What might be unlikely to you is obviously not unlikely to someone else.
      Re-interviewing witnesses does happen in police investigations, if that is what we are dealing with.
      We simply do not know how many people were interviewed in Millers Court that Friday, so your objecting to police returning to the court has no basis.

      Besides, and I'll say it for the last time, it is almost unbelievable unlikely that none of the important papers wouldn't have published, never mind pursued this report, if there had there been any truth in it.
      I've already explained why, so I don't see your need to repeat the objection.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
        According to the extract from the Star that I posted earlier, the coroner's duty went further than simply determining cause of death;

        "In SUDDENLY CLOSING THE INQUEST,
        Dr. Macdonald stated that the duty of the jury was merely to ascertain the cause of death, but the common law, since Edward I., has declared that in the language of the declaratory statute, "all the injuries of the body, also all wounds, ought to be viewed; and the length, breadth, and deepness, with what weapon, and in what part of the body the wound or hurt is; and how many be culpable, and how many wounds there be, and who gave the wounds - all which things must be enrolled in the roll of the coroner's." No question was put as to any of these points"

        Anyone care to comment?
        My only comment is that this is not taken from the 1887 Coroner's Act, so I imagine the Star obtained a copy of the Act which was in effect prior to 1887.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          S. 3 (1).
          "The Coroner should therefore inquire as to the circumstances of the death; where, and when, the deceased died or was found dead; by whom he was last seen alive; who was present or who first saw the body after death;......"
          Mary Kelly was found dead at 10:45a. S. 4 puts more responsibility on the jury to determine time of death than the coroner unless its inferring when in similar manner to the coroner's responsibilities.

          Coroner MacDonald offers her cause of death being severance of her carotid artery.
          he sets a case for murder when dr Phillips states that Mary's body was removed after the injury that caused death. iow coroner baxter had to prove the deaths weren't suicides based solely on the evidence of the slashed throat; Jack the Ripper didn't move their bodies, so Baxter had to explain that other cuts were evident as well.
          he calls any witness from Miller's Court who had come in immediate contact with Mary - McCarthy, Bowyer, Maxwell, Cox, Vanturney, Barrett
          ... and then some - Prater and Lewis, two women who could have been bumped from the inquest had any other Miller Court resident provided an eyewitness account of Mary. prater's only real offerance is that there was no light on in marys room and she didnt hear tables and beds banging about (an unresolved subplot in itself). and, without Hutchinson, lewis offers so much less. (unless, of course, coroner MacDonald used these women to suggest a 3ish in the morning tod; but, why then call Maxwell in the first place)
          mary's character and circumstances are provided, and he narrowed her tod to within a nine-hour window.

          His summary seems at odds with his earlier statements regarding medical evidence; but he also has some rationale in his conclusion. A second inquiry would be a reexamination of the minutiae of the same evidence. murder had been established.
          there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

          Comment


          • http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-08/0965273838

            Might have been ulterior motives for holding the Inquest at Shoreditch Town Hall.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              My only comment is that this is not taken from the 1887 Coroner's Act, so I imagine the Star obtained a copy of the Act which was in effect prior to 1887.
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              My comment in a word would be: obsolete.
              Thanks chaps. My understanding of Common Law is that it stems from judicial precedent rather than statutes and legislation.
              In fact, Wikipedia says that "Common law, as the body of law made by judges,[7][8] stands in contrast to and on equal footing with statutes which are adopted through the legislative process, and regulations which are promulgated by the executive branch."

              From that, I can't see how it can be superceded by the Coroners Act 1887, only by legal precedent.

              However I'm no legal expert, so I won't argue the point.

              Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
              considering he established her cause of death, are the subsequent mutilations considered wounds or injuries?
              I don't think it matters, apparently all wounds and injuries needed to be described, not just the fatal ones.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                I truly doubt that the requirement of "when", is met by simply writing "Friday". In cases of murder the actual time is surely the expected interpretation. Whether this time is estimated by medical testimony, or determined by eyewitness testimony, will depend on the individual case.
                Establishing the day is of precious little help to a police investigation and the authors of the Coroner's Act had to appreciate this.
                Jon – just look at Mary Kelly's death certificate. Under the heading "When and where died" it says "9th November 1888". That's the "when". There was no requirement to establish the time of death (whatever you think the authors of the Coroner's Act would have appreciated).

                If you don't agree then just show me where we find the times of death being established for Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman from the Baxter inquests.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                  From that, I can't see how it can be superceded by the Coroners Act 1887, only by legal precedent.

                  However I'm no legal expert, so I won't argue the point.
                  You are right Joshua but it's more complicated than that.

                  The Star (or rather the Daily Telegraph, which is where the story first appeared) said that "the common law, since Edward I., has declared that…". This isn't quite right. The quoted provision has come from the Statute De Officio Coronatoris of 1276 (a.k.a. 4 Edw.1) which was a statute from the time of Edward 1, which statute was declaratory of the common law at that time. However, the 1276 statute was repealed in its entirety by the 1887 Coroners Act so the newspaper was arguably wrong to fall back on the common law in a situation where the cited provision had been incorporated into a statute, which statute had been repealed.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                    You are right Joshua but it's more complicated than that...
                    Surprise surprise, who'd have thought matters of law would be less than clear?
                    Thanks David for explaining it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                      Thanks chaps. My understanding of Common Law is that it stems from judicial precedent rather than statutes and legislation.
                      In fact, Wikipedia says that "Common law, as the body of law made by judges,[7][8] stands in contrast to and on equal footing with statutes which are adopted through the legislative process, and regulations which are promulgated by the executive branch."

                      From that, I can't see how it can be superceded by the Coroners Act 1887, only by legal precedent.

                      However I'm no legal expert, so I won't argue the point.



                      I don't think it matters, apparently all wounds and injuries needed to be described, not just the fatal ones.
                      The common law is most definitely not on an equal footing to Parliamentary statute, the latter taking precedence on the basis of Parliamentary sovereignty: see, for example, Cheney v Conn (1968). Equity also prevails over the common law.

                      Of course, to complicate matters, judicial interpretation of statute technically represents the common law.
                      Last edited by John G; 08-09-2017, 11:28 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John G View Post
                        Of course, to complicate matters...
                        There's that word again.
                        Thanks John.

                        So (anyone), when Coroner Baxter expressed amazement that Dr Phillips didn't want to reveal anything more about Chapman's injuries than was necessary to determine cause of death, was he behind the times, or was he entitled to ask for the full details (and to an answer) whether or not it was legally neecessary?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                          There's that word again.
                          Thanks John.

                          So (anyone), when Coroner Baxter expressed amazement that Dr Phillips didn't want to reveal anything more about Chapman's injuries than was necessary to determine cause of death, was he behind the times, or was he entitled to ask for the full details (and to an answer) whether or not it was legally neecessary?
                          Baxter's point was that all the evidence about Chapman's injuries WAS necessary to determine the cause of death (and that it wasn't Phillips' role to decide what was relevant in this respect), i.e.

                          The CORONER. - We are here to decide the cause of death, and therefore have a right to hear all particulars. Whether that evidence is made public or not rests with the Press. I might add I have never before heard of any evidence being kept back from a coroner.
                          Dr. Phillips. - I am in the hands of the Court, and what I was going to detail took place after death.
                          The CORONER. - That is a matter of opinion. You know that medical men often differ.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                            There's that word again.
                            Thanks John.

                            So (anyone), when Coroner Baxter expressed amazement that Dr Phillips didn't want to reveal anything more about Chapman's injuries than was necessary to determine cause of death, was he behind the times, or was he entitled to ask for the full details (and to an answer) whether or not it was legally neecessary?
                            Hi Joshua,

                            The position today is that coroners have a wide discretion as regards the conduct of the inquiry: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...retion&f=false

                            Thus, "We are unwilling for our part, to fetter the discretion of the coroner by being at all prescriptive about the procedures he should adopt in order to achieve a full, fair and thorough hearing." (Per Brookes, LJ, R v Coroner for Lincolnshire, ex parte Hay, 1999.)

                            I would imagine the position in 1888 would be very similar.
                            Last edited by John G; 08-09-2017, 01:26 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Thanks again. I'm learning so much today :-)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                                I agree that the constable should have been called varqm but only bc Coroner Macdonald brought him up in the first place, when he led Mary Ann Cox with the question: It could have been a policeman?

                                They were establishing someone in the court at 6:15a; and also, establishing potential times of death for Mary Kelly. This matter could have been cleared up by bringing the constable before the inquest. Why Mary Ann Cox only heard footsteps at 6:15a might suggest that constables only patrolled Miller's Court during daylight hours.
                                The man Cox heard at past six,yes the policeman would have been called and ascertained if it was.The PC,again, passed 16 times if an 8 hour shift,30 min beat,the crucial part,11 pm-4 am.,and he saw nothing,a man, a couple,how about the beat pass before 10 PM (Nov 8th)and how about the beat pass during maxwell's sighting.The PC could not help in Hutchinson's
                                statement,he PC(s) was/were not in the inquest.To me it's somewhat plain to see there were no beats on dorset st on the evening and early morning
                                on Nov. 8/9th.Maybe Dorset St. was not important enough,maybe the Lord mayors show ,maybe a lack of manpower.Just a hunch this was a reason the kelly inquest was cut,although jurisdiction and costs were put forward.We don't know for sure either way.Eddowes inquest were 2 days, one week apart,Kelly was one day only.

                                How about this witness...

                                Evening News
                                London, U.K.
                                12 November 1888
                                THE WORK OF THE POLICE

                                STATEMENT BY A FLOWER GIRL

                                A flower girl, named Catherine Pickell, residing in Dorset street, states that at about 7.30 on Friday morning she called at Kelly's house to borrow a shawl, and that,
                                though she knocked several times, she got no answer.


                                But unfortunately...

                                Times (London)
                                Tuesday, 13 November 1888


                                Some surprise was created among those present at the inquest in Shoreditch Town-hall by the abrupt termination of the inquiry, as it was well known that further evidence would be forthcoming.
                                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                                M. Pacana

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X