Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC did not pass Dorset St. in his beat

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

  • Varqm
    replied
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    It doesn't matter how quick it would have taken. He wasn't asked to give that evidence.
    There was a plan to have him give evidence in another day of that inquest but that too was cut short by the police,who else.

    The Star
    LONDON. MONDAY, 12 NOVEMBER, 1888

    Barnett:
    Did you ever hear her say she was afraid of anyone? - Yes, she used to get me to bring her evening papers....

    Here a note was handed into the court from Dr. Phillips asking if he should attend to-day to give his evidence.

    The Coroner thought he should just give them roughly an idea of the cause of death, leaving the details of his evidence for a future day, and dispatched a message to that effect.


    -------

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    I don't remember any,but the way she was acting she was "prostituting",the inquest did not have to know that.
    Yeah Cox should have been the main or secondary witness and walked through the district to spot/identify Blotchy,as far as is known
    the police did not do it,did not value her testimony enough,it's clear Abberline made a mistake.as Swanson was with Schwartz,they got
    derailed by Hutch.The Stride and Kelly inquest's conclusion/implication are being ignored by many,Brown was the last man seen in Stride's case
    and Lewis's lurking man in the Kelly case.I look at both inquest's conclusion/implication as fact.

    I think Cox could have been a victim but Kelly was ready to get "cooked".

    Echo
    London, U.K.
    10 November 1888

    It is believed to be the medical opinion that the woman was killed in her sleep, or while in a partially comatose condition arising from drink.

    ----
    Last edited by Varqm; 10-30-2018, 03:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
    Don't know if it's been asked or mentioned before, but did Mary Ann Cox give more detail as to where she was from 1.00am to 3.00am on the morning of MJK's murder?
    I'm not sure there is any further info on where Cox was between 1:00 - 3:00 am.

    Although the court record does give 3:00 am as the time Cox came back, the Daily News gives "about 3:00 am". Both the Times & Morning Advertiser give 3:10 am.
    If Cox really gave 3:10 as the time then it may have been rounded up to 3:00 by most writers, and that would also justify the D.N. writing "about 3:00".
    It's more difficult to explain why two different sources would give 3:10 if she really said 3:00.

    3:10 would also explain why Hutch didn't see her. He told the press he left the scene as, "the clock struck three o'clock."

    Leave a comment:


  • Busy Beaver
    replied
    Don't know if it's been asked or mentioned before, but did Mary Ann Cox give more detail as to where she was from 1.00am to 3.00am on the morning of MJK's murder? Cox herself put herself in a situation where it easily could have been her that became the Ripper's victim that morning.It's also rather odd that Hutch did not see Cox returning to Miller's court at 3.00am since he did not leave until 3.15am. And of course Cox doesn't recall seeing anyone in the Court, but does say that MJK's room was quiet and there was no light coming from it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    In October and first week of November,whatever they did,they were successful in preventing a ripper killing and it prompted the killer to kill indoors.
    But in November 8-9,especially between 11:00 PM-5 Am,the killer was given his first "free pass".So he took it immediately.In the streets it was better with no copsthan having them no matter what the circumstances the killer meet the victim, so the killer took advantage of it.The damn geezer wanted a parade.


    ---
    Last edited by Varqm; 09-04-2018, 07:37 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Great find, Jon.. I particularly like the fact that it mentions verbatim court reporting... presumably a sought after skill, which has served us well!
    Clearly some of the reporters employed were not very good with the verbatim side of their jobs

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-03-2017, 12:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Shorthand was a requirement in journalism.

    Here is a journalist looking for work.


    May 5, 1888
    Great find, Jon.. I particularly like the fact that it mentions verbatim court reporting... presumably a sought after skill, which has served us well!

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Out of interest, does anyone know how widespread the use of shorthand was among the journalists of that time? Were all of them trained in it?
    Shorthand was a requirement in journalism.

    Here is a journalist looking for work.


    May 5, 1888

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    The depth of information obtained from a selection of witnesses at the inquest is not a reflection of the total information available to police.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
    a layman's answer is apparent to me. its nothing more than a variation of inquest procedures respective to each coroner. baxter was press and Ripperologist friendly; macdonald was police friendly.

    as for baxter's inquests. if i dreg the pits of my soul, i have to confess that i charlie brown "ugh!!" thru his summaries. if any juror on that panel resembled myself, he muttered to himself: "no need for sunday service this week after that sermon." There's no explanation for Day 5 of Annie Chapman's inquest. Or Day 4 of Polly Nichols. Robert Paul had complained about the fact there was a second inquiry. Baxter calls many witnesses who didn't see or hear anything that its a surprise he didn't call the entire social club before the panel; several recalls.

    it's a contrast of the grandiose vs the clever. if they had caught Jack the ripper the following week, would coroner MacDonald's inquest come back to haunt him at the trial?

    You're right varqm The police weren't withholding bc they even release the description given by Hutchinson soon after George appearing. And i think your suspicion on the dorsett street beat should've been questioned then too - maybe it was a skeleton crew that nite in light of the constables needed for Lord Mayor's Day, maybe 2 pc were patrolling an hour beat, maybe millers court wasnt patrolled at nite, maybe those pc looked the other way at night in light of the number of prostitutes, maybe they were gathered together in a parking lot for a half hour like the cops who patrol my neighborhood do at 11 every night,... whatever the reason, if sara lewis can walk into the heart of ripper country at 2 in the morning by herself, im sure a constable should have no problems walking dorset street either.
    [pm] about mary's relatives. why didnt any attend her funeral?
    Good point.Cox also did not have a problem with it,going out twice so it was not that "dangerous".Notice also that there where also no vigilante member,private detective,amateur detective who patrolled that street,since nobody testified or there were no news report.The street was not important.Maybe if that street had affluence it would have been different.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    I'm saying it was because there was no PC on the beat It would have created a lot of criticism and embarrassment from everywhere.
    The inquest could have continued for the rest of the year but it still wasn't meant to investigate whether there were sufficient police constables on the streets. That wasn’t the role of an inquest. Therefore your speculation is seriously flawed.

    You keep talking about money but there was a cost to the public purse of continuing the inquest. The jurors clearly wanted to get back to work. The coroner did not want his inquest to duplicate the role of the police investigation. The doctor was paid a statutory fee for carrying out a post mortem and attending at the inquest and he had done both things as required of him. The cause of death had been established and the jurors were able to sign off on the inquisition with all the details of the death required by statute.

    Could the inquest have continued for many more days to find out more information? Yes, of course. Was it required to do so by law? No, it wasn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    So basically Phillips only said enough of the medical evidence ,
    'The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the
    bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate
    cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner. "

    just enough for Macdonald to:

    " It is quite sufficient if they find out what the cause of death was".

    and the jury to decide.

    No more of the rest of the medical evidence, time of death (would have helped answering the 'when"),even the murder weapon,the PC on the beat or any member of the police, and additional witnesses that may have come out the next day and the next inquest,a week or two away usually.

    It was restricted and wrapped up quickly.In other inquests,Nichols,Chapman Eddowes,the doctor related his post-mortem,he was getting paid,and the normal questioning from the coroner.But why was it hurried up? They had no suspects,only Blotchy.

    I'm saying it was because there was no PC on the beat It would have created a lot of criticism and embarrassment from everywhere.
    Last edited by Varqm; 08-22-2017, 06:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    It would have taken 1 min to say the estimated TOD and the possible
    murder weapon.The doctor was getting paid for it.
    It doesn't matter how quick it would have taken. He wasn't asked to give that evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    ...
    Why withhold the estimated time of death[ Phillips and Bond had one each]
    I've no doubt Phillips had an opinion on the time of death, but the way you word the above is as if you think Bond & Phillips had a different opinion on the time of death.
    Is that what you mean?

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    It would have taken 1 min to say the estimated TOD and the possible
    murder weapon.The doctor was getting paid for it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X