PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

[Sam Flynn]

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 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?

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.

[Robert St Devil]

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"?

hello david. Thru Dr Phillips inquest statement, Coroner Macdonald established that the severance of her carotid artery is what caused her death. Even he seems to realize that the subsequent, horrific mutilations are signature work, which did not contribute to her death; so, were irrelevant to the inquest but still relevant to the investigation. Coroner Baxter may have "spoiled" the press with more information than was necessary considering that, in the other cases, cause of death was also attributed to a severance of the carotid artery.

[Joshua Rogan]

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?

[Robert St Devil]

Dr Phillips did say that he produced photos, would that count?

[Robert St Devil]

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?

considering he established her cause of death, are the subsequent mutilations considered wounds or injuries?

[David Orsam]

hello david. Thru Dr Phillips inquest statement, Coroner Macdonald established that the severance of her carotid artery is what caused her death. Even he seems to realize that the subsequent, horrific mutilations are signature work, which did not contribute to her death; so, were irrelevant to the inquest but still relevant to the investigation. Coroner Baxter may have "spoiled" the press with more information than was necessary considering that, in the other cases, cause of death was also attributed to a severance of the carotid artery.

Hi Robert, yes I think that was Macdonald's motivation namely that Baxter had given the press too much and he was giving them as little as possible!

[David Orsam]

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 comment in a word would be: obsolete.

[Wickerman]

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?

It isn't so clear cut Robert.
At the outset of the inquiry we had no reason to suppose this was going to be a one-sitting affair. In fact, directly following the evidence given by Dr Phillips, we read:
"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."

This was followed by a short adjournment.

So it seems if there was any decision by Macdonald to limit this inquiry, it came after the adjournment. We don't know if the coroner consulted with anyone during that adjournment, but his subsequent address to the Jury is not consistent with the opinion given after Dr Phillips's evidence.

[David Orsam]

but his subsequent address to the Jury is not consistent with the opinion given after Dr Phillips's evidence.

I think you mean "understanding" rather than "opinion".

[Wickerman]

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?

Yes, a beat constable should have passed every thirty minutes from the start if the shift at 10 o'clock, to its end at 6 o'clock in the morning.
And he may have, he may have provided a statement for the inquiry, but if Hutchinson was up the court when the constable passed, and he didn't see Lewis, or notice a couple walking in Dorset street, then what help would he be to the inquest?
Remember, it's the Coroner who selects the statements, so the none appearance of a constable is the Coroner's decision, no-one else's.

It serves little purpose to compare witnesses from different inquests, under different Coroner's. Every Coroner had his own way of conducting an inquiry.

[Wickerman]

I think you mean "understanding" rather than "opinion".

Yes David, thanks.

[Wickerman]

"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)?

In all honesty, I originally thought it was a misprint for "corner of Dorset st".
Millers Court is hardly a "corner".

[Sam Flynn]

In all honesty, I originally thought it was a misprint for "corner of Dorset st".

I've sometimes thought that, too, but why not just say "when I left Dorset Street"? Could this have been a journalist's scribble that got lost in translation? I guess it's too much of a stretch to suggest that Hutch said "When I left the cover of Miller's Court", but something similar might have happened.

[Wickerman]

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"?

David.

What I am referring to is mentioned in two sections of the Coroner's Act.

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;......"

and 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,......"


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.

[Wickerman]

I've sometimes thought that, too, but why not just say "when I left Dorset Street"? Could this have been a journalist's scribble that got lost in translation? I guess it's too much of a stretch to suggest that Hutch said "When I left the cover of Miller's Court", but something similar might have happened.

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.

What can ya' do...