Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

    The PC (Henry Morton) who was supposed to have Dorset St.in his beat was not in the Kelly inquest.
    His testimony could have added/helped even if he said I did not see anyone in the street as he passed it,if a 30 min beat,
    2x between 2 and 3 AM.

    Here are examples of a couple of testimonies included in the Eddowes inquest. which did not really add a lot but helped.


    Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
    (The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)

    Constable Richard Pearce, 922 City: I reside at No. 3, Mitre-square. There are only two private houses in the square. I retired to rest at twenty minutes past twelve on the morning of last Sunday week.
    [Coroner] Did you hear any noise in the square? - None at all. When did you first hear of the murder? - At twenty past two, when I was called by a constable.
    [Coroner] From your bedroom window could you see the spot where the murder was committed? - Yes, quite plainly.
    By Mr. Crawford: My wife and family were in no way disturbed during the night.


    George Clapp, caretaker at No. 5, Mitre-street, deposed: The back part of the house looks into Mitre-square. On the night of Saturday week last I retired to rest in the back room on the second floor about eleven o'clock.
    The Coroner: During the night did you hear any disturbance in the square? - No.
    [Coroner] When did you first learn that a murder had been perpetrated? - Between five and six o'clock in the morning.
    By Mr. Crawford: A nurse, who was in attendance upon my wife, was sleeping at the top of the house. No person slept either on the
    ground floor or the first floor.


    Although different coroners Mr. S. F. Langham - City and Dr. Macdonald, M.P.- Met, my contention is the PC did not perform passes through Dorset St.,Friday the 9th, between 1-5 AM at least.
    Last edited by Varqm; 07-26-2017, 05:14 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

  • #2
    Hi varqm

    I did not know that it had been established that 63L was Henry Morton? I may have missed it.

    At any rate, it's possible the PC was absent, but I don't think his absence from the inquest can be used to argue that.

    It's also as possible that the coroner did not call him because he had nothing to add - the witnesses at the inquest all added some info about Kelly's whereabouts - there were no time wasters; unlike the Eddowes' inquest you mention.

    Comment


    • #3
      Morton is the only known name associated with that collar number, and he joined in the 1850s or sometime around then.

      Collar numbers change frequently, upon on permanent transfer or restructuring.

      However, to the point. Coroners call on the witnesses, this decided upon via witness statements. It would seem he didn't find any value in that particular statement.

      Monty




      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you Monty.

        Morton appears in the Old Bailey transcripts as 63L as early as 1849.

        I would find it highly unlikely that he was still in the police force 39 years later.

        Even though the man depicted is an old geezer

        I just wondered since varqm mentioned it being him seemingly as an established fact.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
          Thank you Monty.

          Morton appears in the Old Bailey transcripts as 63L as early as 1849.

          I would find it highly unlikely that he was still in the police force 39 years later.

          Even though the man depicted is an old geezer

          I just wondered since varqm mentioned it being him seemingly as an established fact.
          I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, if he was say 25 when he joined in 1849 he's o even 65 by '88. If e wasn't 20 he hasn't even hit 60.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            The only Henry Morton in the Ancestry Met police records resigned in 1870 after 23 years in L division.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by GUT View Post
              I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, if he was say 25 when he joined in 1849 he's o even 65 by '88. If e wasn't 20 he hasn't even hit 60.
              But what was the mandatory retirement age in 1888? When my dad retired from the police force, about 20 years ago, it was 55.

              Comment


              • #8
                Over on the Forums Howard Brown discovered a constable 63L in a report from 1887. Given the year, this is almost certainly the PC seconded to H division.

                The name of the deceased was actually William Augustus Downe in the death register. This is the only report that I can find, but it's possible that if a local paper reported the inquest, the policeman may have been named.

                https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=18750&page=2

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GUT View Post
                  I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, if he was say 25 when he joined in 1849 he's o even 65 by '88. If e wasn't 20 he hasn't even hit 60.
                  No particular reasoning; it was my understanding that PCs routinely retired after 25 years, making 39 very unusual. Also, Henry Morton the PC appears regularly in Old Bailey until about the 1870s, I can't check at the moment but he stops appearing a longish time before 1888.

                  So nothing definite, I would just consider it very unlikely to be the same guy without further info

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                    Hi varqm

                    I did not know that it had been established that 63L was Henry Morton? I may have missed it.

                    At any rate, it's possible the PC was absent, but I don't think his absence from the inquest can be used to argue that.

                    It's also as possible that the coroner did not call him because he had nothing to add - the witnesses at the inquest all added some info about Kelly's whereabouts - there were no time wasters; unlike the Eddowes' inquest you mention.

                    I'm saying it was possible .Was it official (in the records,have not come across any) that the PC indeed passed Dorset St. in his beat?

                    Also it's just hard for me to believe that at 11:00 PM to 3:00 AM,the PC or PC's, if a beat changed.missed all these incidents,Kelly and Blotchy walking in Dorset St. to Millers Court at around 11:45 pm, Cox at 11:45 pm...12 am ...1 am -in and out (although a discrepancy with Prater)...3 am,Prater 1:00 - 1:20 am,Lewis at 2:30 am - and her sighting , the 2 couples - one on either side of Dorset St, the man standing across the court.So the times he passed by Dorset st. the street/street corners were empty,no couples or single man which would have been noteworthy .

                    And I suppose he was or his statement to his superiors was used to verify Hutch's statement because at 2:00 am to 3 am he must have passed by Dorset at least 2x.,and must have seen Hutch once at least.At least according to their initial belief that Hutch was trustworthy.


                    It's not established that it was Morton,just a possibilty.The name Henry Morton in the IPS illustration was randomly chosen?
                    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


                    • #11
                      IPN not IPS.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                        And I suppose he was or his statement to his superiors was used to verify Hutch's statement because at 2:00 am to 3 am he must have passed by Dorset at least 2x.,and must have seen Hutch once at least.At least according to their initial belief that Hutch was trustworthy.
                        This point has been raised before. That one of the first actions of the CID in receiving Hutchinson's statement would have been to have the pocketbook records of the beat constables checked for any corroboration for what Hutchinson told them.
                        However, this was after the inquest concluded.

                        For the inquest, the Coroner selects the witness statements which are going to help him uncover the identity of the victim, and the where, when & by what means the victim met her death.
                        If the beat constables statement does not contribute towards either of those determinations then he may not be called. He will not be called simply to confirm the statement of another witness, this is an inquest not a trial.

                        It is possibly too much to expect the beat constable knew Mary Kelly by sight given the number of newly drafted constables in the area. And the issue of Kelly being out after midnight never arose.

                        Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter the passage while the loiterer was present, but she did not know if the female was Kelly, Lewis didn't know Kelly by sight. So, no beat constable will be called to confirm what Sarah Lewis said, it was not known at the time to have been significant.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I understand it was an inquest and a different coroner too.The PC should have seen Hutch or a man standing across the court once, if a man was there they
                          would not have dismissed Hutchinson,if there was no man Hutch statement would have been dismissed,perhaps immediately..But if the PC did not pass Dorset St
                          then they would not have been able to tell and thus initially believing in Hutch then they dismissed him as they did not use him and used Lawende or Schwartz.
                          If for arguments sake the Seaside ID happened in Jan 1889 they were able to contact either one after a few months,why not years.The same would have
                          applied to Hutch. A trusted witness was better than a written report or a sketch.But enough of Hutch,I'm convinced he was not there.

                          "Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter the passage while the loiterer was present,"

                          No, up the street. Sarah did not say court or the passage going into it.

                          "It is possibly too much to expect the beat constable knew Mary Kelly by sight"

                          Only a sighting of a woman,couple or man would have helped or been significant, not anyone in particular.
                          Last edited by Varqm; 07-27-2017, 05:37 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


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            This point has been raised before. That one of the first actions of the CID in receiving Hutchinson's statement would have been to have the pocketbook records of the beat constables checked for any corroboration for what Hutchinson told them.
                            However, this was after the inquest concluded.

                            For the inquest, the Coroner selects the witness statements which are going to help him uncover the identity of the victim, and the where, when & by what means the victim met her death.
                            If the beat constables statement does not contribute towards either of those determinations then he may not be called. He will not be called simply to confirm the statement of another witness, this is an inquest not a trial.

                            It is possibly too much to expect the beat constable knew Mary Kelly by sight given the number of newly drafted constables in the area. And the issue of Kelly being out after midnight never arose.

                            Sarah Lewis saw a couple enter the passage while the loiterer was present, but she did not know if the female was Kelly, Lewis didn't know Kelly by sight. So, no beat constable will be called to confirm what Sarah Lewis said, it was not known at the time to have been significant.

                            Stop pedaling this nonsense wick and misleading people. Sarah Lewis never saw couple go in the court. She saw them go up the street.
                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                              I'm saying it was possible .Was it official (in the records,have not come across any) that the PC indeed passed Dorset St. in his beat?

                              Also it's just hard for me to believe that at 11:00 PM to 3:00 AM,the PC or PC's, if a beat changed.missed all these incidents,Kelly and Blotchy walking in Dorset St. to Millers Court at around 11:45 pm, Cox at 11:45 pm...12 am ...1 am -in and out (although a discrepancy with Prater)...3 am,Prater 1:00 - 1:20 am,Lewis at 2:30 am - and her sighting , the 2 couples - one on either side of Dorset St, the man standing across the court.So the times he passed by Dorset st. the street/street corners were empty,no couples or single man which would have been noteworthy .

                              And I suppose he was or his statement to his superiors was used to verify Hutch's statement because at 2:00 am to 3 am he must have passed by Dorset at least 2x.,and must have seen Hutch once at least.At least according to their initial belief that Hutch was trustworthy.


                              It's not established that it was Morton,just a possibilty.The name Henry Morton in the IPS illustration was randomly chosen?
                              I agree, as I wrote, since it's possible that he wasn't in place.

                              However, his absence at the inquest is not a valid argument, since there are equally convincing arguments explaining why he wasn't called. In fact, since his statement in IPN was more or less:"I was on duty all night and didn't see anything", why would they call him?

                              So to repeat, yes it's possible he wasn't there, but there's really no source stating he wasn't, so why should we think so?

                              You didn't just say that it was possible, you said it was your "contention" that he wasn't. I just don't think there's anything to support that idea?

                              And the name Henry Morton is not in the illustration? Just "L 63", which has been interpreted as PC 63L Henry Morton, who, however, served as PC already 1849.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X