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 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,the 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.We don't know either way. Just a hunch this was a reason the kelly inquest was cut,although jurisdiction and costs were put forward.We don't know either way.Eddowes inquest were 2 days, one week apart,Kelly was one day only.

    How about this witness,against Maxwell's testimony....

    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.
    Last edited by Varqm; 08-09-2017, 03:59 PM.
    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, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
    M. Pacana

    Comment


    • I believe less likely it was a jurisdiction issue/tension (with a juror or Baxter) that the inquest was cut short, because the inquest was already on the way and Macdonald was insistent it was in his jurisdiction,and cost cause this was a big case.
      Last edited by Varqm; 08-09-2017, 04:43 PM.
      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, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
      M. Pacana

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
        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,the PC(s) was/were not in the inquest.
        true, but this inquest had someone representing the police who the other inquests didn't have, and that was inspector abberline. he states that he is in charge of the case. the coroner asks him if there is anything further that the jury should know, and he responds no. if a dorset street constable knew something, insp abberline would have known it too.
        there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

        Comment


        • The PC's could be called though and narrate their beat but apparently there were none .The police were not withholding info since Cox described a suspect,
          and medical evidence would not have done much to that effect.The one week gap between inquests,partly was to allow more info to come in.The most brutal
          murder and only one day of inquests? Nichols 4 days, Chapman 5 days, Eddowes 2. Something was preventing it.Although Mary Kelly had no relatives.

          (Bagster,not Baxter)
          Last edited by Varqm; 08-10-2017, 02:30 PM.
          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, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            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.
            I don't agree David.

            - Nichol's death was pretty much established within 15 minutes - 3:30-3:45, not sometime on Friday.
            - Dr Phillips provided an estimated time of death for Chapman, at least 2 hrs prior to his arrival at 6:30 am., not sometime on Saturday.
            - Eddowes time of death can also be established within about 15 minutes - 1:30-1:45 am, not sometime on Sunday.

            A particular 'day' is fine for a death certificate, but next to useless for a police investigation.

            Dr. Bond's estimated time of death for Kelly was available to Macdonald, personally I think he knew about it, but that's just my guess.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              I don't reject the suggestion that she was out on the streets between those times, only the idea that "several" unnamed witnesses from Miller's Court suddenly remembered that she was,.....
              Hi Gareth.

              Isn't the Yorkshire Ripper murders among your interests?

              Remember the 5 note fiasco?
              The note was traced to a batch sent to a business in Bradford, the CID obtained the names and addresses for all their employees.
              Detectives were sent in pairs, to the home of each employee to be interviewed. One week later a second team of detectives re-interviewed all the same employees.
              There was no stated reason why, the police had not learned of anything new in between times. They were just sure the answer laid with one of these people.
              Sutcliffe was among those being interviewed, he was first interviewed on Nov. 2nd, then again on Nov. 8th.

              Later, there was a victim of an attack who survived, she gave the police a clue, the name Dave, or David.
              CID ran this name through their files and found that they had already interviewed over a thousand suspects named Dave, or David.
              They re-interviewed all 1037 of them, a second time.

              * * *

              In the Kelly case, there was a significant difference in what the police knew between these two interviews.
              This press report we are talking about appeared on Wed. 14th, in the morning paper. As the morning paper goes to print over night we can see that the stories they publish were obtained the day, or evening before, on the 13th.

              One thing we know for sure, when the police questioned the residents on the 9th, they didn't know anything about a loiterer, or a couple in Dorset street, or that the woman was tipsy and the man rather well-dressed.
              All this came to light via Hutchinson on the evening of the 12th. So there is absolute cause for them to return to Millers Court to re-interview the residents. This time they are prepared with specific questions aimed at any of these residents seeing a loiterer, and at what time. Also, if they didn't recognise Kelly, they at least may have noticed this same couple in the street, or even entering the passage. Then there is the question of the appearance of this man with the tipsy woman.
              It isn't a case of 'remembering', it is a case of the police having more direct questions to put to them.

              There was every justification for the police to return to Millers Court to re-interview the residents.
              And that, is what we read in the papers.

              Quote.
              Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • a layman's answer is apparent to me. its nothing more than a variation of inquest procedures respective to each coroner. baxter was press and Ripperologist friendly; macdonald was police friendly.

                as for baxter's inquests. if i dreg the pits of my soul, i have to confess that i charlie brown "ugh!!" thru his summaries. if any juror on that panel resembled myself, he muttered to himself: "no need for sunday service this week after that sermon." There's no explanation for Day 5 of Annie Chapman's inquest. Or Day 4 of Polly Nichols. Robert Paul had complained about the fact there was a second inquiry. Baxter calls many witnesses who didn't see or hear anything that its a surprise he didn't call the entire social club before the panel; several recalls.

                it's a contrast of the grandiose vs the clever. if they had caught Jack the ripper the following week, would coroner MacDonald's inquest come back to haunt him at the trial?

                You're right varqm The police weren't withholding bc they even release the description given by Hutchinson soon after George appearing. And i think your suspicion on the dorsett street beat should've been questioned then too - maybe it was a skeleton crew that nite in light of the constables needed for Lord Mayor's Day, maybe 2 pc were patrolling an hour beat, maybe millers court wasnt patrolled at nite, maybe those pc looked the other way at night in light of the number of prostitutes, maybe they were gathered together in a parking lot for a half hour like the cops who patrol my neighborhood do at 11 every night,... whatever the reason, if sara lewis can walk into the heart of ripper country at 2 in the morning by herself, im sure a constable should have no problems walking dorset street either.
                [pm] about mary's relatives. why didnt any attend her funeral?
                Last edited by Robert St Devil; 08-10-2017, 03:57 PM.
                there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                Comment


                • Yeah Baxter.Got it mixed-up.The press took note the inquest stopped abruptly and/or withholding info.It's unclear why the inquest stopped.In my opinion it was because
                  there were no PC's on the beat.
                  Last edited by Varqm; 08-10-2017, 06:42 PM.
                  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, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                  M. Pacana

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                    a layman's answer is apparent to me. its nothing more than a variation of inquest procedures respective to each coroner. baxter was press and Ripperologist friendly; macdonald was police friendly.

                    as for baxter's inquests. if i dreg the pits of my soul, i have to confess that i charlie brown "ugh!!" thru his summaries. if any juror on that panel resembled myself, he muttered to himself: "no need for sunday service this week after that sermon." There's no explanation for Day 5 of Annie Chapman's inquest. Or Day 4 of Polly Nichols. Robert Paul had complained about the fact there was a second inquiry. Baxter calls many witnesses who didn't see or hear anything that its a surprise he didn't call the entire social club before the panel; several recalls.

                    it's a contrast of the grandiose vs the clever. if they had caught Jack the ripper the following week, would coroner MacDonald's inquest come back to haunt him at the trial?

                    You're right varqm The police weren't withholding bc they even release the description given by Hutchinson soon after George appearing. And i think your suspicion on the dorsett street beat should've been questioned then too - maybe it was a skeleton crew that nite in light of the constables needed for Lord Mayor's Day, maybe 2 pc were patrolling an hour beat, maybe millers court wasnt patrolled at nite, maybe those pc looked the other way at night in light of the number of prostitutes, maybe they were gathered together in a parking lot for a half hour like the cops who patrol my neighborhood do at 11 every night,... whatever the reason, if sara lewis can walk into the heart of ripper country at 2 in the morning by herself, im sure a constable should have no problems walking dorset street either.
                    [pm] about mary's relatives. why didnt any attend her funeral?
                    “From what I learn the police are content to take the future conduct of the case“ [basically saying or told by the police,the police would take it from there after this day of the inquest or stated the obvious]

                    but he gave the jury the chance to extend it...


                    “It is for you to say whether you will close the inquiry to-day; if not, we shall adjourn for a week or fortnight, to
                    hear the evidence that you may desire.“


                    You're maybe right,Macdonald conducted the inquest in his own way.
                    Last edited by Varqm; 08-11-2017, 03:02 AM.
                    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, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                    M. Pacana

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      I don't agree David.

                      - Nichol's death was pretty much established within 15 minutes - 3:30-3:45, not sometime on Friday.
                      - Dr Phillips provided an estimated time of death for Chapman, at least 2 hrs prior to his arrival at 6:30 am., not sometime on Saturday.
                      - Eddowes time of death can also be established within about 15 minutes - 1:30-1:45 am, not sometime on Sunday.
                      That's just your own interpretation of the evidence though Jon. It didn't come from the juries at the inquests. They didn't establish the times of deaths. Nor are those times stated on the death certificates.

                      And if the jury established the time of death in the Chapman case, why do we find Swanson, in his report of 19 October, fretting that if Long's evidence was correct in seeing Chapman at 5.30am "then the evidence of Dr Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect"? If she was alive at 5.30am then she wasn't murdered "at least two hours" prior to Phillips' arrival at 6.30am was she? So the time of death obviously wasn't established at the inquest.

                      In the Kelly case, there was conflicting evidence as to time of death. It wasn't possible for the jury to resolve it and they weren't required to.

                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      A particular 'day' is fine for a death certificate, but next to useless for a police investigation.
                      But the inquest was not part of the police investigation. If the police wanted to work out the time of death they could do so, they don't need a coroner's jury to do it for them. Consequently, Macdonald did not need to determine the time of death in order for his inquiry to be played "by the book".

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                        Yeah Baxter.Got it mixed-up.The press took note the inquest stopped abruptly and/or withholding info.It's unclear why the inquest stopped.In my opinion it was because
                        there were no PC's on the beat.
                        Given that we have no idea if any PC saw anything of note, as opposed to Phillips who had pages of medical evidence.
                        It is far more likely, in my opinion, that Macdonald simply did not want some, or all, of the medical evidence made public.
                        Whether this was at the request of police is another possibility.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          That's just your own interpretation of the evidence though Jon. It didn't come from the juries at the inquests. They didn't establish the times of deaths. Nor are those times stated on the death certificates.
                          David, you did make a point of saying "from the Baxter inquests", or words to that effect.
                          Does this selection below look like it is my interpretation?

                          Nicholls.
                          Llewellyn, who arrived about 4 o'clock said:
                          "...I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour."

                          Chapman.
                          Phillips, who arrived at 6:30 said:
                          " I should say at least two hours,"

                          Eddowes.
                          Brown, who arrived about 2:20 said:
                          "The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body."

                          Stride.
                          Blackwell, who arrived at 1:16 said:
                          "From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

                          Kelly.
                          Phillips ??????????
                          Last edited by Wickerman; 08-11-2017, 04:06 PM.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                            true, but this inquest had someone representing the police who the other inquests didn't have, and that was inspector abberline. he states that he is in charge of the case. the coroner asks him if there is anything further that the jury should know, and he responds no. if a dorset street constable knew something, insp abberline would have known it too.
                            That exchange between Macdonald & Abberline always struck me as odd. Abberline's reply suggests to me he was under the impression the inquest would be adjourned for a further sitting. Otherwise, why offer to communicate with the coroner if something comes to light?

                            Then Macdonald, abruptly shuts the inquiry down.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              David, you did make a point of saying "from the Baxter inquests", or words to that effect.
                              Does this selection below look like it is my interpretation?

                              Nicholls.
                              Llewellyn, who arrived about 4 o'clock said:
                              "...I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour."

                              Chapman.
                              Phillips, who arrived at 6:30 said:
                              " I should say at least two hours,"

                              Eddowes.
                              Brown, who arrived about 2:20 said:
                              "The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body."

                              Stride.
                              Blackwell, who arrived at 1:16 said:
                              "From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

                              Kelly.
                              Phillips ??????????
                              All you are doing is confusing two things, Jon, namely (1) the requirement of the jury to certify when the deceased came by his death and (2) whether a doctor gave evidence as to his opinion of the time of death.

                              Yes, of course, in other inquests a doctor opined as to the time of death (and this did not happen in the Kelly inquest) but where is the statutory requirement for him to do so?

                              Macdonald called all the relevant witnesses. Two witnesses gave evidence about hearing a cry of murder in the night. One witness gave evidence as to seeing Kelly alive in the morning. The doctor was called but neither the coroner nor the jury asked him his opnion as to the time of death. The jury could have asked the question but didn't. All he could have given, though, was an opinion, not direct evidence.

                              What I am saying is that Macdonald's inquest fulfilled the statutory requirements under the 1887 Act. His jury established when Kelly died: 9th November 1888, as stated on the death certificate.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post

                                What I am saying is that Macdonald's inquest fulfilled the statutory requirements under the 1887 Act. His jury established when Kelly died: 9th November 1888, as stated on the death certificate.
                                The way I read the requirements in the Act is that the Coroner is expected to produce witnesses who present testimony which will provide evidence to fulfill those stated requirements.

                                Macdonald knows from experience (being a surgeon himself) that medical opinion can be contested, and that may transpire through police further investigation. However, at this stage it is only necessary to provide evidence which results from the post mortem, and this is where the estimated time of death is given (re: previous examples).
                                The doctor who is expected to provide this evidence can only do so if the coroner permits him.

                                This is where I feel Macdonald failed to perform his duty.

                                There will be cases where an estimated time cannot be given, one example may be Druitt's body floating in the Thames. They may be lucky to pin his death down to an actual day.
                                Druitt's case was an exception, Kelly's case was not an exception. In fact the very existence of Bond's estimated time of death written two days before the inquest indicates an answer was available.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X