PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

[Wickerman]

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.

Hello David.

I was responding to Varqm, not Sam.

Nevertheless, the press who were present reported how Macdonald suddenly terminated the inquest. From the dialogue we cannot possibly know the atmosphere that existed between the Coroner and the Jury, but as the press were in agreement on this then it must have been obvious.
The only way the Coroner can influence the Jury to terminate the inquest (without actually saying so himself) is by him pressing his opinion on the matter.
Which he apparently did.

[Joshua Rogan]

This is what the Star 14th Nov says, if you can trust it;

"A second inquest would have been held on Kelly's body had it been removed into the Whitechapel district for burial. But the double inquiry has been averted by the action of Mr. H. Wilton, parish clerk and keeper of the Shoreditch mortuary. He has undertaken to inter the body at his own expense, assisted by contributions which may be received, and yesterday he obtained from the coroner's officer an order to prepare a coffin. 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."

[David Orsam]

Hello David.

I was responding to Varqm, not Sam.

So you were, sorry Varqum (and what kind of name is that???) and Sam.

Nevertheless, the press who were present reported how Macdonald suddenly terminated the inquest. From the dialogue we cannot possibly know the atmosphere that existed between the Coroner and the Jury, but as the press were in agreement on this then it must have been obvious.
The only way the Coroner can influence the Jury to terminate the inquest (without actually saying so himself) is by him pressing his opinion on the matter.
Which he apparently did.

It may be that the Coroner was pressing his opinion on the matter but my point was that this does not conflict with the cited section of the 1887 Coroner's Act. If you think that the Coroner wasn't playing it "by the book" in this respect you need to do better than cite in support a section which is dealing only with a (sort of) prohibition against a Coroner expressing an opinion on the facts of the case.

[Varqm]

To add ,in my opinion the PC was not there,either the PC did not do his job or he was assigned to somewhere else - lack of manpower maybe.
The inquest did not need to know,it would have created criticism of the police,no one walking the beat on the street where Kelly's murder occurred.

[Varqm]

So you were, sorry Varqum (and what kind of name is that???)

Varqm better than David Orsam(like watching paint dry)

[David Orsam]

Varqm better than David Orsam(like watching paint dry)

Oh I see. Well in which case I shall leave you to your fascinating conversation with Jon about the finer points of the Coroners Act of 1887

[Wickerman]

It may be that the Coroner was pressing his opinion on the matter but my point was that this does not conflict with the cited section of the 1887 Coroner's Act. If you think that the Coroner wasn't playing it "by the book" in this respect you need to do better than cite in support a section which is dealing only with a (sort of) prohibition against a Coroner expressing an opinion on the facts of the case.

Hi David.

Yes, I did notice the distinction.
Though I would imagine that paragraph in the Coroner's Act was not intended to prevent a premature closing of an inquest, but more likely prevent a Coroner from unduly influencing the outcome.
In this case Macdonald seemed to assert his opinion & position to impress on the Jury that they have no need to take this any further. I'm not suggesting the outcome would have been any different. But he did fail to provide evidence to the Jury which might indicate a time of death.
It would appear the press in attendance thought the same.

[Wickerman]

To add ,in my opinion the PC was not there,either the PC did not do his job or he was assigned to somewhere else - lack of manpower maybe.
The inquest did not need to know,it would have created criticism of the police,no one walking the beat on the street where Kelly's murder occurred.

We can only expect he should have been there, but that doesn't mean he was.
If he received an internal reprimand for not being in Dorset street when he should have been then we will never know.

The importance of this constable is negligible with regard to the inquest, but the issue was raised as a potential witness to some part of what Hutchinson told Abberline.

[Wickerman]

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.)

Certainly it doesn't automatically mean the whole paragraph was correct, even if two points out of three are deemed correct, or accepted as such.
Generally though, if we have no evidence to the contrary, and in fact do have a corroborative statement or two in support of it then, we tend to give it the benefit of the doubt.
Isn't that normal?

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.

Why "remembered"?, that sounds like an attempt to belittle the report. We don't know how many statements the police obtained from the Millers Court residents. Only two were used at the inquest - Cox & VanTurney.
There were 12 units inside the court, so anywhere from 10 to 20+ people who may have had something to offer, plus those like Prater, living in the house at No.26.

It isn't a case of overlooking, it is more a case of how important was it when the prevailing opinion following the appearance of Hutchinson was that Kelly was out on the town.
At this point in time, with no evidence to the contrary, why believe otherwise?

[Robert St Devil]

to what extent the coroner jon...

if the intent of the coroner is to provide a rushed or reserved inquest, wouldnt he have to order the witnesses in such a fashion that a verdict settlement could be approached at the end of the first inquiry?

[Varqm]

We can only expect he should have been there, but that doesn't mean he was.
If he received an internal reprimand for not being in Dorset street when he should have been then we will never know.

The importance of this constable is negligible with regard to the inquest, but the issue was raised as a potential witness to some part of what Hutchinson told Abberline.

I disagree.The PC passed by Dorset St. 10 times between 11pm and 4am,if a 30 min beat and this was less important than Van Turney,Mulshaw,Clapp?

[Varqm]

Oh I see. Well in which case I shall leave you to your fascinating conversation with Jon about the finer points of the Coroners Act of 1887

Good.Who cares about names.

[Bridewell]

"When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three."

Does anyone else think this might indicate that Hutchinson left his original vantage point and spent the remainder of his time on Dorset Street actually waiting at (or in) in the entrance to Millers Court (rather than on the other side of the street opposite said entrance)?

[Robert St Devil]

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.

[David Orsam]

In this case Macdonald seemed to assert his opinion & position to impress on the Jury that they have no need to take this any further. I'm not suggesting the outcome would have been any different. But he did fail to provide evidence to the Jury which might indicate a time of death.
It would appear the press in attendance thought the same.

Well there is nothing in the Coroners Act which says that the jury has to establish the time of death and, as far as I am aware, Macdonald, in any event, presented to the jury every available witness who could have assisted with the time of death. The point he was making to the jury was that they did not need to solve the murder. It was sufficient for them to come to a verdict as to the cause of death. So tell me, why he didn't play it "by the book"?