PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for this, Jon. A new one on me.

It's just a brief account which appeared in the press on the 14th.

Hmm.... appeared in the provincial press, for the most part. None of the heavies carried it, and none of the big-hitting local papers (e.g. Star, PMG) seem to have picked up on it either. You'd have thought that they would have, if the report had any substance to it.

How likely is it that "several persons" from Miller's Court suddenly recovered their memories,? How likely is it that they were out and about between 2-3 AM in Dorset Street, at the same time as Kelly, such that they were able to positively identify her?

Based on logical/logistical concerns such as these, and the apparent lack of interest by anything other than small and/or provincial newspapers, I'd suggest that the Press Association report was spurious.

For the record, I'm not against the idea of Kelly having gone out after 2AM - on the contrary, I think it's quite possible that she did, so please be assured that there's no bias on my part. I do, however, find that Press Association report extremely hard to believe.

[Wickerman]

That doesn't mean that opinion wasn't divided, nor that some police no longer believed Hutchinson's account.

True, but we have no indication that anyone in authority at the time did not believe Hutchinson.
Pursuing two suspects does not mean one of the witnesses is not believed. They are both believed, otherwise they would only be chasing one suspect.

Both witnesses (Cox & Hutchinson) must be telling stories that are believed. The police need to work on finding more evidence in order to eliminate one of the suspects. This had not happened by the 19th, if the press reports are correct, and quite possibly as far out as 6th Dec.

On 13th Nov. the Echo reported that the city police were looking for a man described as:
" of shabby genteel appearance, and had a sandy moustache........
The City police have been making inquiries for this man for weeks past, but without success, and they do not believe that he is the individual described by Cox."

Whereas they also report:
"The Metropolitan police, however, have been induced to attach more significance to Cox's statement."

We do not know what this "inducement" was, but it's a fair bet that the report by Dr Bond which gave an estimated time of death between 1:00-2:00 is the most likely reason, because it is consistent with Cox's suspect.

So disbelief doesn't seem to enter into this, in fact on the evening of the 16th we read that one Met. constable is not assigned to pursuing the Cox suspect.
This is the story by Mr. Galloway.
"I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."
Evening News, Star, 16th Nov.

This report came the day after the Star published their "discredited" theory. Which again shows the unreliability of the Star accusation, they are contradicting their own story from the previous day.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for this, Jon. A new one on me.
Hmm.... appeared in the provincial press, for the most part. None of the heavies carried it, and none of the big-hitting local papers (e.g. Star, PMG) seem to have picked up on it either. You'd have thought that they would have, if the report had any substance to it.

If you care to inquire over at JTRForums you'll find that many of the heavy-hitting researchers do find it of benefit to search the provincial and outlying press sources because they can often carry reports that are either ignored by the mainstream London press, or edited out of agency stories, often because space was a premium.
I've found this to be true many times myself, it happens more often than you may realize.
The story of Bowyer seeing Kelly with a well-dressed man on Wednesday night, with peculiar eyes and white collar & cuffs, was only reported in two newspapers - The London Evening Standard & the Western Mail, a Cardiff region paper.

This story about some Millers Court residents seeing Kelly out after 2:00 is only of great importance to us, or some of us, today. There was no big civic unrest about when Kelly was last seen alive. Indeed, the man seen by Hutchinson was believed to be the murderer, so this story was 'blah' for the big London press.
People already believed she was out, that's how she met her killer

[Varqm]

Every Coroner conducts his inquests in his own way. If Macdonald had been the coroner in those previous inquests then you may have a point, but as he was not, then there is no point in claiming that Macdonald must conduct his inquests in the same way as previous coroners.




No, whoever that constable was, we do not know if Dorset street was part of his beat. He may have only walked straight passed the end of Dorset street keeping to Commercial street.
Millers Court is about 120+ feet down Dorset street from the Commercial street end, so it is unlikely the constable could have seen anything of note so far away in the dark.

I disagree. The witnesses were there to make clear a narrative/picture (the more witnesses the better) of what happened as possible,including events around the murder time at the murder site ,so the provisions of the 1887 Coroners Act could,in a simple manner,be accomplished.
That's why Julia Van Turney from the Kelly inquest aside from witnesses from other inquests James Mulshaw,Emma green,George Clapp were there so,in part, the jury could decide better and follow the provisions below,


"When not less than twelve jurors are assem-
bled they shall be sworn by or before the coroner
diligently to inquire touching the death of the person
on whose body the inquest is about to be held, and
a true verdict to give according to the evidence. "



"It is 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."



The PC would be there even if he saw nothing because from his testimony the jury would know,as one example, who were'nt there in relation to other witness's testimonies,Lewis for ex..at the time he passed through Dorset St.It was more valuable than Julia's testimony for ex. and James Mulshaw's,etc..

[Wickerman]

I disagree. The witnesses were there to make clear a narrative/picture (the more witnesses the better) of what happened as possible,including events around the murder time at the murder site ,so the provisions of the 1887 Coroners Act could,in a simple manner,be accomplished.

Quite true.
So why was no second hearing permitted so Dr. Phillips could present his evidence in full?


You quote:

"It is 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."

Then how do you justify Coroner Macdonald saying this to the Jury:

"The question is whether you will adjourn for further evidence. My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases, and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expense and trouble. 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."

The Coroner is clearly leading the Jury and attempting to terminate the inquest.
While it is true that Macdonald conceded the rights of the Jury in saying:
"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."

This same Jury had previously been addressed severely by Macdonald in his opening statements. They had already tested his patience once, so when he later firmly declared - "My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary....", they may have felt reluctant to test his patience a second time.
The press, unanimously, reported on this surprise termination of the inquest by the Coroner, so Macdonald's attempt to sway the Jury was readily apparent to all in attendance.

How is that, "by the book?"

The PC would be there even if he saw nothing because from his testimony the jury would know,as one example, who were'nt there in relation to other witness's testimonies,Lewis for ex..at the time he passed through Dorset St.It was more valuable than Julia's testimony for ex. and James Mulshaw's,etc..

And, if the constable did recall seeing people coming and going, but nothing peculiar to make special attention of, then what use is that?
Whoever he saw may, or may not, have been these people of interest to the court.

[Sam Flynn]

If you care to inquire over at JTRForums you'll find that many of the heavy-hitting researchers do find it of benefit to search the provincial and outlying press sources

As a fairly heavy-hitting researcher myself, I'm well aware of the value of casting a wide net when it comes to newspaper reports. However, I'm also aware that we need to take a balanced view across, and within, all sources in order to arrive at the most logical and likely conclusions.

How many other Miller's Court witnesses could there have been, and how many of them would have been out and about at the requisite times AND definitely ID'ed Kelly? We've already heard from Mrs Cox, Sarah Lewis, Mrs Prater, Julia Venturney and the Picketts. The latter were asleep (or at least trying to), and I daresay that many of the remaining residents were also asleep at the relevant times. Of the witnesses whom we know about, none of them (apart, possibly, from Lewis) report seeing Kelly on the streets between 2-3AM, so why should we believe that "several" of these other anonymous residents had seen her?

The police surely questioned all available Millers Court witnesses on the 9th, and found only Prater, Cox, Venturney and Lewis had anything of interest to impart to the inquest. One might speculate that the "missing witnesses" were out when the police called on the 9th - the 10th and 11th as well, for all I know - but that's already starting to sound like special pleading.

The most parsimonious explanation, surely, is that the PA report was in error. If there had been the merest whisper of substance in that report, then one or more of the Star, Pall Mall Gazette, Echo, Daily News, Illustrated Police News, Telegraph or Times would have been all over Miller's Court like a rash. Their silence speaks volumes.

[Sam Flynn]

This is the story by Mr. Galloway.

"I then informed the constable of what I had seen, and pointed out the man's extraordinary resemblance to the individual described by Cox. The constable declined to arrest the man, saying that he was looking for a man of a very different appearance."
Evening News, Star, 16th Nov.

This report came the day after the Star published their "discredited" theory. Which again shows the unreliability of the Star accusation, they are contradicting their own story from the previous day.

Given that this appeared in both the Evening News and the Star, this might have been a press agency report, rather than a "staffer" on the Star itself; so the matter might not be one of internal contradiction. Secondly, Mr Galloway's story happened in the early hours of the morning on Weds 14th, when Mr Astrakhan was perhaps still the hot favourite. Third, the timing of Galloway's story allowed the Star some 20-odd hours to learn that Hutchinson's story became "discredited" (by some at least), and the fact that they decided to print this story is arguably of little importance; news is news. Fourth, and this is a very long shot, perhaps the copper to whom Mr Galloway spoke was George Oldfield's grandad

[Wickerman]

As a fairly heavy-hitting researcher myself, I'm well aware of the value of casting a wide net when it comes to newspaper reports. However, I'm also aware that we need to take a balanced view across, and within, all sources in order to arrive at the most logical and likely conclusions.

A "Balanced" view does not include dismissing a report based on emotion.
Contest the report by using evidence by all means, but a "well, I don't think....", is not an acceptable response for a seasoned? researcher.

How many other Miller's Court witnesses could there have been,...

Nine families of the twelve units in Millers Court were not heard from.
Anyone of the men leaving for work after one o'clock that Friday morning may not have returned home by five o'clock when the police opened up Millers Court.
If so, these men would not be interviewed by police on that Friday.

The police surely questioned all available Millers Court witnesses on the 9th, and found only Prater, Cox, Venturney and Lewis had anything of interest to impart to the inquest. One might speculate that the "missing witnesses" were out when the police called on the 9th - the 10th and 11th as well, for all I know - but that's already starting to sound like special pleading.

If you question the accuracy of evidence, I suggest you find contesting evidence, not use emotion.

Also, we don't know of any interviews with Millers Court residents conducted on the weekend, only on the Friday. So no, not special pleading.

The most parsimonious explanation, surely, is that the PA report was in error. If there had been the merest whisper of substance in that report, then one or more of the Star, Pall Mall Gazette, Echo, Daily News, Illustrated Police News, Telegraph or Times would have been all over Miller's Court like a rash. Their silence speaks volumes.

This brief article begins by saying that "no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock", which was correct, wasn't it?
So how can this report be wrong?

Like I pointed out before, the suggestion Kelly was out is taken for granted on the 13th because the press were promoting Astrachan as her murderer. She had to be accepted as out on the street for Astrachan to be a suspect - correct?

So this short report was 'blah' as far as being of interest to the major London press, however the Morning Advertiser did run the whole article. If you recall on the 13th the papers were full of Hutchinson's story about seeing Kelly, so why bother with an article which only repeats the fact that Kelly was out on the street? It really was not in any doubt on the 13th, was it?
The Hutchinson story already established that, and this was the talk of the town.

[Sam Flynn]

A "Balanced" view does not include dismissing a report based on emotion.

I'm basing my conclusions on logic, and I've given you a glimpse of my rationale, or at least part of it, in my previous posts.

Give my intelligence some credit. I'm not a moron, you know.

[Sam Flynn]

Nine families of the twelve units in Millers Court were not heard from.
Anyone of the men leaving for work after one o'clock that Friday morning may not have returned home by five o'clock when the police opened up Millers Court.

Five o'clock... on the 12th? On the 13th? Perhaps they waited until the morning of the 14th, which would allow just about enough time for the police to interview them, and inform the Press Association of these "several" new witnesses in time for them to release their report. A report which, as we've seen, was picked up only by small, almost entirely provincial, papers, and completely missed by every single one of the local and/or national big-hitters.

Which is more likely: that the big-hitter papers would ignore the PA report if there was a grain of truth in it, or that the PA report was in error?

Logic points to only one sensible conclusion.

[Sam Flynn]

This brief article begins by saying that "no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock", which was correct, wasn't it?
So how can this report be wrong?

The fact that it contains one truth doesn't make the rest of it reliable.

[Wickerman]

Just on the subject of incomplete or edited press releases, this Galloway story is another example.
The two sources we have here on Casebook are incomplete, the Evening News and the Star edited their copy down. The full article was published in other London papers and many outer provincial papers.

The Galloway article actually begins with this:



Which shows how the press deduce the direction of the investigation, not from police, but from other incidents.

The Galloway article then terminates with this:



Which is emphasizing the fact that at this time the Hutchinson story appears dominant when compared to that of Cox.
Though why they do not identify those "many persons" is interesting, they do not appear to be police.

[Wickerman]

The fact that it contains one truth doesn't make the rest of it reliable.

How about the last line, which reads:
"....between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour."

This last line of that press report is also quite acceptable, is it not, given the time of the "scream" and the fact the press had no knowledge of Dr Bond's estimated time of death?

So it is just that middle bit that you do not like, my question is, "why?"

Given that Kennedy said she saw Kelly, that Lewis described a woman who fit what Hutch said about Kelly, and the fact Hutch himself said she was out.
Three sources there, and even if we say (for arguments sake), that Lewis and Kennedy were the same. You create even more complications for yourself in that Lewis (as Kennedy) saw Kelly at three o'clock, yet Lewis (as herself), didn't recognize Kelly at 2:30.

And no, we are not going off on a tangent talking about Kennedy now, but we have discussed sources who talk about Kelly being out between 2-3:00.
And, you have heard from Cox & Prater that Kelly's room was quiet and dark after about one o'clock.
Everything we learn about this issue is pointing in the same direction.

My interest is, why the resistance?

What police report, or what press report, is leading you to reject the suggestion that Kelly was out between 2-3:00?

[David Orsam]

Quite true.
So why was no second hearing permitted so Dr. Phillips could present his evidence in full?


You quote:


Then how do you justify Coroner Macdonald saying this to the Jury:

"The question is whether you will adjourn for further evidence. My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases, and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expense and trouble. 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."

The Coroner is clearly leading the Jury and attempting to terminate the inquest.
While it is true that Macdonald conceded the rights of the Jury in saying:
"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."

This same Jury had previously been addressed severely by Macdonald in his opening statements. They had already tested his patience once, so when he later firmly declared - "My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary....", they may have felt reluctant to test his patience a second time.
The press, unanimously, reported on this surprise termination of the inquest by the Coroner, so Macdonald's attempt to sway the Jury was readily apparent to all in attendance.

How is that, "by the book?"

I think you are mistaken on your interpretation of the Coroner's Act, Jon.

What the passage quoted by Sam from S.4(3) of the Act is saying is that the jury, when considering its verdict, should not be influenced by what the Coroner thinks about the facts of the case. This was contrasted with questions of law where "juries ought to show the most respectful deference to the advice and recommendation of the coroner".

If the coroner was saying that all the jury had to do was come to a decision as to cause of death, that was a matter of law within the province of the coroner. If his opinion was that they had heard enough evidence to enable them to do so then there was nothing in the Act preventing him from expressing that opinion.

There is nothing in S.4(3) of the Act, in other words, which is inconsistent with what MacDonald said to the jury in the quotes in your post.

[Sam Flynn]

How about the last line, which reads:
"....between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour." This last line of that press report is also quite acceptable, is it not, given the time of the "scream" and the fact the press had no knowledge of Dr Bond's estimated time of death?

Again, that doesn't mean that the Press Association was correct in stating that "several" new Miller's Court witnesses were found after the inquest. Even the Star, I'm sure you'd concede, could be accurate in part of an article, even if the rest of the article was in error. (No need to single out any particular paper, of course; they're all susceptible to this.)

What police report, or what press report, is leading you to reject the suggestion that Kelly was out between 2-3:00?

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, and that the big-hitting (and big-selling) newspapers simply overlooked such a significant new development in the case. It's inherently unlikely, for all sorts of reasons.

My interest is, why the resistance?

No resistance from me. In fact, I find it quite possible that Kelly went out after 2AM, and I don't need any phantom witnesses to support that possibility.