PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

[David Orsam]

So the doctor[s] who did a post-mortem on Kelly was getting paid.
Why withhold the estimated time of death[ Phillips and Bond had one each] and the possible murder weapon(they did this in the previous inquest).

It wasn't withheld. He simply wasn't asked to give his opinion about this.

The fact that he was paid a statutory fee to perform a post-mortem is utterly irrelevant.

[Varqm]

So the doctor[s] who did a post-mortem on Kelly was getting paid.
Why withhold the estimated time of death[ Phillips and Bond had one each] and the possible murder weapon(they did this in the previous inquest).
If the estimnated time of death was closer to Maxwell then the "unknown person " must have met Kelly around Maxwell's sighting
and so forth,Blotchy or cry of Murder.The press\public\jury needed to know.

Coroners Act 1887

A coroner holding an inquest shall imme-
diately after the termination of the proceedings pay
the fees of every medical witness not exceeding the
fees fixed by this Act, and all expenses reasonably
incurred in and about the holding thereof, not ex-
ceeding the sums set forth in the schedule of fees
for the time being in force under this Act, and the
sums so paid shall be repaid to the coroner in
manner provided by this Act:



For attending to give evidence at any inquest
whereat no post-mortem examination has been
made by such practitioner, one guinea ; and
(h.) For making a post-mortem examination of
the body of the deceased, with or without an
analysis of the contents of the stomach or in-
testines, and for attending to give evidence
thereon, two guineas :

It wouldn't have alerted a suspect or 'pervert justice',they only had one at that time,Blotchyv or Joe as told by Van Turney.Joe Barnett was cleared.

And the Pc would have described the outside of Miller's Court.The witnesses all describe the inside of Miller's Court except Lewis between 10 pm - 6am.
The press might have also noticed it was incomplete, that's why their complain.

[David Orsam]

We have to disagree,to me the inquests looked/was hurried up,also the press noticed it.

The post mortem were carried out in the previous inquests,and doctors paid to perform it and give evidence,for a reason,partly because it clarified in more detail the how and when including what was done to the body,even the murder weapon.And the time was in dispute,i.e.Maxwells testimony.

So the jury can then...

It is peculiarly the province of the jury to investigate and
determine the facts of the case ; they are neither to ex-
pect, nor should they be bound by, any specific or direct
opinion of the coroner upon the whole of the case, except
so far as regards the verdict which, in point of law,
they ought to find as dependent and contingent upon
their conclusions in point of fact.

..You know Van Turney helped determine the facts of the case.

"It is the duty of the coroner to sum up the evidence
and to explain to the jury the law applicable to the case,"

No-one is disputing that the inquest was hurried up. That was what was agreed by the coroner with the jury, i.e. to end it after the first day. The question is whether this was breaking any rules.

There WAS a post-mortem in this case and Dr Phillips gave evidence as to the cause of death.

The jury DID investigate and determine the facts that they were required to investigate and determine, namely how, why, when etc. the deceased died.

[Varqm]

You're quoting both Macdonald and the 1887 Act out of context.

What the Coroners Act of 1887 says is this:

After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict, and certify it by an inquisition in writing, setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter, the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter or of being accessories before the fact to such murder.

I've highlighted in bold the two parts you've missed out.

In respect of the first bold highlighted part, the jury DID certify in writing who the deceased was, and how, and when the deceased came by her death. You can find all that information on the death certificate. So Macdonald followed the Coroners Act to the letter in this respect. There was no further evidence required.

But what he was saying to the jury when he said "all you have to do" is not literally that they only had to establish cause of death but that they did not have to solve the crime despite what the Coroners Act says about them identifying the persons they thought to be guilty in the second bold highlighted part. He was saying that they should be leaving that to the police otherwise there would be two separate and ongoing inquiries. The jury were perfectly happy about this as they all wanted to go home. They did not want to run a parallel inquiry into the murder with the police.

We have to disagree,to me the inquests looked/was hurried up,also the press noticed it.

The post mortem were carried out in the previous inquests,and doctors paid to perform it and give evidence,for a reason,partly because it clarified in more detail the how and when including what was done to the body,even the murder weapon.And the time was in dispute,i.e.Maxwells testimony.

So the jury can then...

It is peculiarly the province of the jury to investigate and
determine the facts of the case ; they are neither to ex-
pect, nor should they be bound by, any specific or direct
opinion of the coroner upon the whole of the case, except
so far as regards the verdict which, in point of law,
they ought to find as dependent and contingent upon
their conclusions in point of fact.

..You know Van Turney helped determine the facts of the case.

"It is the duty of the coroner to sum up the evidence
and to explain to the jury the law applicable to the case,"

[David Orsam]

---Macdonald did not follow the Coroner's act:

coroners act 1887

”who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter”

"what is the supposed cause of death either known or suspected;whether the death was sudden;whether cause by violence as wounds,burns,
ill-usage,poison,suicide"

MACDONALD:

Coroner: ”If the coroner's jury can come to a decision as to the cause of death, then that is all that they have to do.”

or ”All they had to do was to ascertain the cause of death”

It's clear the inquest was done speedily.The police would take over from there.
The medical evidence would have done nothing as to alerting the killer/suspect.So what was the point in withholding info?
And how about new info,till the next inquest day, that could add to the how,when.

You're quoting both Macdonald and the 1887 Act out of context.

What the Coroners Act of 1887 says is this:

After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict, and certify it by an inquisition in writing, setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter, the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder or manslaughter or of being accessories before the fact to such murder.

I've highlighted in bold the two parts you've missed out.

In respect of the first bold highlighted part, the jury DID certify in writing who the deceased was, and how, and when the deceased came by her death. You can find all that information on the death certificate. So Macdonald followed the Coroners Act to the letter in this respect. There was no further evidence required.

But what he was saying to the jury when he said "all you have to do" is not literally that they only had to establish cause of death but that they did not have to solve the crime despite what the Coroners Act says about them identifying the persons they thought to be guilty in the second bold highlighted part. He was saying that they should be leaving that to the police otherwise there would be two separate and ongoing inquiries. The jury were perfectly happy about this as they all wanted to go home. They did not want to run a parallel inquiry into the murder with the police.

[Varqm]

coroners act 1887

”who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter”

"what is the supposed cause of death either known or suspected;whether the death was sudden;whether cause by violence as wounds,burns,ill-usage,poison,suicide"



---When the 'time' is in dispute 11 pm or 4 am,which is the 'when',the day?If 4 am or 9-10 am,who was the suspect.Does'nt/didn't the doctor's testimony put weight on which? Wasn't this part of the reason why post-mortem testimony was important to the inquest/coroner,it helped in the ”how” and ”when”.The 3 below [post-mortem descriptions not included] had,also mentioned was the weapon used.
.


Nichols:

Day 1, Saturday, September 1, 1888
Henry Llewellyn, surgeon,

”I have this morning made a post-mortem examination of the body”
”These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence.”

Chapman:

Day 1, Monday, September 10, 1888
Mr. George Bagster Phillips, divisional-surgeon of police,


”I went to the labour- yard of the Whitechapel Union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation.
”[Coroner] Was the instrument used at the throat the same as that used at the abdomen? - Very probably. It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin,
narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.”

Eddowes:

Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown

” I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon.”
”[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife,
and I should say at least 6 in. long.”


---No post-mortem report/descriptions done in the Kelly inquest or questions about it by Macdonald, only about when Dr. Phillips entered Kelly's room.


---How about toxins from the post-mortem report, which MACDONALD noted was important?

Eddowes:

Mr. William Sedgwick Saunders, medical officer of health for the City, said: I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully
sealed, and I made an analysis of the contents, which had not been interfered with in any way. I looked more particularly for poisons of the narcotic
class, but with negative results, there being not the faintest trace of any of those or any other poisons.

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=306010

Daily News
United Kingdom
4 October 1888


TO THE EDITOR OF THE DAILY NEWS.

SIR,-A remarkable incident in connection with the recent murders is that in no one instance has it been found that the victim made any noise or cry while being done to death. My assistant suggests
a theory in reference to this very remarkable fact, which strikes me as having something in it, and as such ought to be made public. The theory is that the murderer goes about with a vial of rum or brandy in his pocket drugged with an opiate-such as a solution of morphia, which is almost if not quite tasteless; that he offers a swig of it to his victims (which they would all be likely greedily to accept), when he meets them; that in about ten to twenty minutes the poison begins to do its work on constitutions well soaked with alcohol, and that then they are easily dispatched without fear of making any noise or call for assistance. Having been out of town lately for my holidays, I have not closely followed the evidence at the inquests, but there are two questions which would require clearing up if there is anything in this theory-1st. Have the stomachs been ripped open to do away with the evidence of poisoning in this manner? and 2nd. Has any analysis of the contents of the stomach been made?-Yours respectfully,

R. MACDONALD.
Coroner for N.-East Middlesex.
65, Westferry-road, Millwall, E., Oct. 3.



---The post-mortem was expected that's why the comments below:

Times (London)
Tuesday, 13 November 1888


The CORONER said it would not be necessary for the doctor to go into any further particulars then.
If it was necessary they could recall him at a subsequent period.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1888
The jury had no questions to ask at this stage, and it was understood that more detailed evidence of the medical examination would be given at a
future hearing.An adjournment for a few minutes then took place


Echo
London, U.K.
12 November 1888
The Coroner said that the other portion of Dr. Phillips' evidence would be given at the adjourned inquiry.


Evening News
London, U.K.
13 November 1888

THE ABRUPT TERMINATION OF THE INQUEST

Some surprise was created among those present at the inquest in the Shoreditch Town Hall by the abrupt termination of the inquiry, as it was
well known that further evidence would be forthcoming. The coroner himself distinctly told the jury that he was only going to take the preliminary
portion of Dr. G.B. Phillips's evidence, the remainder of which would be more fully given at the adjourned inquiry.



---Macdonald did not follow the Coroner's act:

coroners act 1887

”who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter”

"what is the supposed cause of death either known or suspected;whether the death was sudden;whether cause by violence as wounds,burns,
ill-usage,poison,suicide"



MACDONALD:

Coroner: ”If the coroner's jury can come to a decision as to the cause of death, then that is all that they have to do.”

or ”All they had to do was to ascertain the cause of death”



It's clear the inquest was done speedily.The police would take over from there.
The medical evidence would have done nothing as to alerting the killer/suspect.So what was the point in withholding info?
And how about new info,till the next inquest day, that could add to the how,when.

[David Orsam]

It seems to boil down to a disagreement over the interpretation of the ambiguous term, "when".
Coroners (previously mentioned) have made a point of inquiring as to the actual time of death from the medical witness, Macdonald did not, yet opinion on that detail was readily available.

The claim that "when" is not to be taken as specific, when the "who" is specific (- the actual name of deceased is required); the "where" is also specific (- the actual address is required); and the "by what means" is again specific (- the direct cause in medical terms being required), then it only stands to reason the "when" must also be specific.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

We don't need to "agree to disagree", Jon, the answer is already proven. It's in the Act.

You quoted it yourself:

S. 4 (3).
"After viewing the body and hearing the evidence the jury shall give their verdict, and certify it by an inquisition in writing, setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them, who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if he came by his death by murder or manslaughter,......"

We know for a fact that the jury certifies, by an inquisition in writing, only the date of death. Not the time. So we know for a fact that "when" means "date of death".

Thus when we read at 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;......"

we know that to fulfill his statutory duty he only has to inquire as to the day the death occurred.

Your own argument is badly flawed in any case. "Where" could mean was she murdered on the bed or in the chair? If on the bed, which side of the bed. But it's not required to be determined in such detail.

Unless you have some authority to show that the time of death had to be determined by an inquest you really do need to accept that you have got this wrong.

[Wickerman]

We are discussing whether a coroner had a legal responsibility to conduct an inquest which determined the time of death. On that point, there is no such responsibility. That's why none of the Ripper inquests did it!

It seems to boil down to a disagreement over the interpretation of the ambiguous term, "when".
Coroners (previously mentioned) have made a point of inquiring as to the actual time of death from the medical witness, Macdonald did not, yet opinion on that detail was readily available.

The claim that "when" is not to be taken as specific, when the "who" is specific (- the actual name of deceased is required); the "where" is also specific (- the actual address is required); and the "by what means" is again specific (- the direct cause in medical terms being required), then it only stands to reason the "when" must also be specific.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[David Orsam]

If the time of a death was of significance?

Your point wasn't any good anyway Jon even if the 1887 Act was in force in Ireland at the time.

We are not discussing whether "the time of a death was of significance" in respect of whether one holds joint or single inquests for multiple deaths.

We are discussing whether a coroner had a legal responsibility to conduct an inquest which determined the time of death. On that point, there is no such responsibility. That's why none of the Ripper inquests did it!

[Wickerman]

Hi Robert.

Yes, that is true, but as David previously mentioned, this 1887 Act came into effect after the incident I referred to. So, the previous British Law covering the duties of a Coroner were in effect.

If the time of a death was of significance in the duties of a coroner prior to the 1887 Act, then how can it not have been of significance after this new and updated Act became Law?
Isn't the intent of revising the law to improve what has gone before?

[Robert]

Hi Jon

The act didn't apply to Scotland or Ireland - clause 2 of Preliminary :

https://archive.org/stream/coronersactswit00melsgoog/coronersactswit00melsgoog_djvu.txt

[Wickerman]

All Ireland was under British Law in 1887.

[David Orsam]

David.

Have you heard of the Mitchelstown Massacre?

When people die in an incident, essentially all dying around the same time, a single inquest is permitted.
However, when several people die on the same day, but at different times, then individual inquests must be held.
On 9 Sept. 1887, police shot into a crowd of protesters causing the deaths of three men. Separate inquests were held because they all died at different times.

Yet, it must be admitted, their death certificates likely recorded the same day for their deaths.

As the Coroners Act of 1887 was not made law until 16 September 1887 and didn't apply to Ireland in any case I fail to see the relevance of deaths in Ireland on 6 September 1887 to this discussion.

[Wickerman]

David.

Have you heard of the Mitchelstown Massacre?

When people die in an incident, essentially all dying around the same time, a single inquest is permitted.
However, when several people die on the same day, but at different times, then individual inquests must be held.
On 9 Sept. 1887, police shot into a crowd of protesters causing the deaths of three men. Separate inquests were held because they all died at different times.

Yet, it must be admitted, their death certificates likely recorded the same day for their deaths.

[David Orsam]

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.

Yes but Jon the stated requirement is nothing more than "when" did death occur.

You have quoted yourself from the Act that the jury was to "certify" in writing when death occurred. I've asked you how any of Baxter's juries certified the time of death.

Clearly they didn't. But they did certify the date of death. Thus, QED, "when" in the Act in respect of the Coroner's duty to "inquire" means that the Coroner is only expected to call witnesses pertaining to the date of death.

In any event, Macdonald DID produce all known witnesses at the inquest who could give any evidence pertaining to the time of death. But there was no statutory requirement for him to have done so or for the time of death to be determined at the inquest.

He played it "by the book". You are not showing anything to contradict this other than your own personal opinion.