John Richardson

[Wickerman]

Hi George.
Yes, actually that is a good point.
It also occurred to me to ask where is the doctor in these proceedings.
I considered if, as this was a heavily class-based society at the time, the doctor was given special dispensation to sit in the court. After all he is there to give medical opinion as a professional witness.
So I had spent some time looking at courtroom drawings in the press to see if the artists show the doctors. They do show the press and the jury, coroner, etc.

Some references take longer to find....

There's a paragraph in, Police Work From Within, Hargrave Adam, 1914.



I thought I had read doctors were permitted to be in court while the layperson witness had to wait in a separate room. But this seems to have been in Scotland, and the above is for trials not coroner's inquests.
So, I wonder if what is written above applicable to England was in force in the 1800's.

One of the excerpts from the press at the time of the Kelly murder appears to suggest witnesses were kept in a separate outside (without) the courtroom. Unless it was just the female witnesses that were kept out of court, the males were allowed in?

"The inquest on Mary Jane Kelly began this morning at eleven o'clock, at Shoreditch town hall. There was no crowd at the doors, and little excitement. Without the coroner's court half a dozen wretched-looking women were sitting on half a dozen cane chairs waiting to be called; and for half an hour the gentlemen of the jury dropped one by one into the green-walled square, little room which is sacred to the coroner. A mahogany table, drawn up against the windows, was laden with hats, black bags and papers, belonging to the army of reporters. The jury, twelve very respectable-looking men, sat on the coroner's right on two rows of chairs. At eleven the coroner Dr Macdonald, took his seat".
Pall Mall Gazette, 12 Nov. 1888.

So, perhaps doctor Phillips was in the courtroom at the inquest, it's just a detail that I find of interest in general.

[GBinOz]

Some references take longer to find....

There's a paragraph in, Police Work From Within, Hargrave Adam, 1914.



I thought I had read doctors were permitted to be in court while the layperson witness had to wait in a separate room. But this seems to have been in Scotland, and the above is for trials not coroner's inquests.
So, I wonder if what is written above applicable to England was in force in the 1800's.

One of the excerpts from the press at the time of the Kelly murder appears to suggest witnesses were kept in a separate outside (without) the courtroom. Unless it was just the female witnesses that were kept out of court, the males were allowed in?

"The inquest on Mary Jane Kelly began this morning at eleven o'clock, at Shoreditch town hall. There was no crowd at the doors, and little excitement. Without the coroner's court half a dozen wretched-looking women were sitting on half a dozen cane chairs waiting to be called; and for half an hour the gentlemen of the jury dropped one by one into the green-walled square, little room which is sacred to the coroner. A mahogany table, drawn up against the windows, was laden with hats, black bags and papers, belonging to the army of reporters. The jury, twelve very respectable-looking men, sat on the coroner's right on two rows of chairs. At eleven the coroner Dr Macdonald, took his seat".
Pall Mall Gazette, 12 Nov. 1888.

So, perhaps doctor Phillips was in the courtroom at the inquest, it's just a detail that I find of interest in general.

Excellent finds Jon.

If I might add the following, which is a little off topic relating to the Kelly murder, but also addresses inquest proceedings, and a little on Mary Ann Cox.

Daily Telegraph Nov 14:
With regard to the statement of Mrs. Cox that she saw a man who carried a pot of beer enter, with the deceased, her room in Miller's-court on the morning of the murder, no can has been found, and inquiry has failed to discover any publican who served Kelly or her companion with beer on the night of Thursday. A second inquest would have been held on the body had it been removed into the Whitechapel district for burial. Mr. Wynne Baxter states that in that case it could not have been avoided, 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, Mr. Hammond, an order to prepare the coffin. Much surprise is expressed that the inquest should have been closed before an opportunity was given to the relatives of the deceased to identify the body. As they are believed to reside in Ireland there was some delay to be expected in finding them. Dr. Macdonald stated that the duty of the jury was 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; the doctor was not asked as to the nature of the weapon which had been used to cause the injuries. It has been held that a coroner is bound to accept all evidence tendered, and to take down in writing the material parts. Dr. Macdonald interrogated the witnesses, but it was Mr. Hodgkinson who committed their testimony to writing. It is in the power of the Attorney-General to apply to the High Court of Justice to hold a new inquest, if he is satisfied that there has been rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, or insufficiency of inquiry. This course is improbable, as it is stated that Mr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, with whom the coroner consulted in private, has had a commission from the Home Office for some time, and he does not consider himself a "free agent"; but it is pointed out that by hurriedly closing the inquest the opportunity has been lost of putting on record statements made on oath, and when the memory of witnesses is fresh. It is not improbable that a long interval may elapse before a prisoner is charged at the police-court.

Interesting that Mary Ann Cox's story of the beer can carrying blotchy suspect could not be supported by the police enquiries. She is the one that heard singing when no one else did, and didn't hear the cry of "murder" heard by two other women.

Curious that the Pall Mall Gazette mentioned six women, and only six women appeared at the inquest. Was it the intention from the start to conduct an abbreviated inquest?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

You cannot answer yes or no?

Hi PI,

I shouldn't have to if you read my post. However, you quoted the following bit of my post:
---------------------------------
Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

... not that I think Long must be correct, but if she did see Annie, regardless of the time, clearly Annie wasn't already dead, so she must have been killed later ...
---------------------------------

And then you asked:

Do you think Long did see Chapman?

-----------------------------------

so I will direct you to the very start of the bit you quoted, where I say "...not that I think Long must be correct, ..." which indicates that I do not think Long must have seen Annie but I do not exclude the possibility either. Basically, I do not know if she did or did not see Annie, so neither yes nor no would be my answer.

So no, I cannot answer yes or no.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Curious that the Pall Mall Gazette mentioned six women, and only six women appeared at the inquest. Was it the intention from the start to conduct an abbreviated inquest?

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Witnesses only appeared on the days they were summoned for.
In the Chapman case Cadoche was summonsed for 3 days, though only appeared for one. Likewise Richardson, Davis & Long for 2 days each.
Phillips was recalled if you remember on day 4, after giving evidence on day 3, so he must have been on-hand sitting somewhere, likewise with Donavon.
The 6 women at the Kelly inquest were scheduled for the first day, Macdonald alluded to future sittings when speaking to Phillips, then he changed his mind.
But, anyway, I'm looking for books on 19th century inquests, I have a few but none of them go into any detail concerning witnesses.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I would suggest that he recognised that the case he was dealing with was considerably outside the contemporary standard to the point where he was uncertain as to to the applicability of its application....

Hi George.

I was looking for situations that reflect the same type of circumstances. The initial charts or graphs, obviously committed to memory as would be necessary when working in the field. But then recognising the standard formulas do not take into account the true situation of temperature & conditions of the body.

Just now I see one similar..

Numerous formulae have been suggested over the last century taking this into account, each with varying degrees of accuracy noted but all of which faced problems in their application to field work due to differences predicted by body position, location or temperature reading, or the presence of clothing (Glaister, 1942; Marshall and Hoare, 1962). It has also been noted that such standardized curves may not take into account other factors such as natural differences in body temperature at the time of death, wind speed, and surface area-to-volume ratio. For example, thinner individuals tend to cool much more quickly. Individual variations such as these have led to suggestions that this PMI estimation approach holds little value when applied to human remains in real criminal investigations (Sutherland et al., 2013).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/algor-mortis

The bold sentence above reflects Phillips situation, when he arrives at Hanbury St. he applies the knowledge that his profession accepts as standard.
This is his "at least two hours, possibly more", because the standard would reflect, 2+ Hours.

However, real-world circumstances; the cool temperatures, the mutilated torso, & extreme loss of blood, require the revision of the "standardized curves", which is the 2+ hours, expressed in words as "at least two hours, possibly more".

You can't split 2+, it's a complete statement in itself, due to the fact the tables are complied from several corpses. When a group of corpses drop in temperature, but individually at 120, 125, 130 or 135 minutes (by way of example), it is not possible to split the group. The whole range are expressed as 2+ hours.
You can split the expression in words, which in effect is cheating, but that is only because someone took the liberty of changing numbers into words.

The 2+ is a groups, which must be corrected as a group (Phillips's Caveat) due to the extreme conditions not taken into account in the standard tables, or "standardized curves".
In reality I think you know this, it's not difficult to understand. I'm not sure a couple of other posters here really understand the simplicity of it, but I have a sneaking suspicion you do.

[New Waterloo]

All of the locations seem nuts. But the activity itself is none too sane, either. To me, the locations are the most underdiscussed - or certainly underexplained - aspect of the whole thing. That's why I keep boring on about there being some other factor which both makes them less nuts than they ostensibly seem, and that even perhaps explains them: were they chosen or opportunistic?

Waterloo made a good suggestion, on categorising them, on the thread which specifically addresses the riskiness of the sites.

I do think they can be categorized into;

1. Opportunist. Spur of the moment

2. Site selected and taken there by killer

3. Site selected and taken there by victim

But I have suggested this merely as a thought provoking exercise and I am not suggesting the killings are opportunistic merely the choice of location. I suppose its a bit obvious really but that doesn't hurt sometimes to state it.

I don't want to go down this mathematical analysis route, you know diagrams and all that stuff.

An example of where thinking about why the sites would be useful would be the Stride murder. As far as I am aware there are many locations in and around Berners Street for the murderer to take advantage. I believe there was an alleyway roughly opposite the club and and as Wickerman pointed out an alleyway just along from the club leading to some gardens.

So the evidence of these more suitable locations stimulates our thoughts and it is real evidence related to the locations. We have to ask ourselves if Stride was killed by JTR why is Dutfields yard selected.

Wickerman is spot on when he talks of the excitement of risk that some serial killers may feel or is the location making a point. This is not so much theory but based on the fact that other locations are nearby which would have been far more suitable than an open singing and dancing venue.

If it was JTR then it was an active choice.

In the case of Hanbury Street as far as I know there was a closed front door which would have to be entered. This could not have been an opportunistic selection as how would Chapman and JTR have known. It just looks like a house.

If there are other discreet locations yards, alleyways in the are again why there. What is the relationship between location and victim/offender. For example I think it was Trevor who said Chapman used to go the Hanbury Street. That would be a firm connection.

There really are opportunities if we try to resist putting theory before evidence. I am finding it difficult, but thought I would share my thoughts. Sorry rambling, tired

NW

[Paul Sutton]

I do think they can be categorized into;

1. Opportunist. Spur of the moment

2. Site selected and taken there by killer

3. Site selected and taken there by victim

But I have suggested this merely as a thought provoking exercise and I am not suggesting the killings are opportunistic merely the choice of location. I suppose its a bit obvious really but that doesn't hurt sometimes to state it.

I don't want to go down this mathematical analysis route, you know diagrams and all that stuff.

An example of where thinking about why the sites would be useful would be the Stride murder. As far as I am aware there are many locations in and around Berners Street for the murderer to take advantage. I believe there was an alleyway roughly opposite the club and and as Wickerman pointed out an alleyway just along from the club leading to some gardens.

So the evidence of these more suitable locations stimulates our thoughts and it is real evidence related to the locations. We have to ask ourselves if Stride was killed by JTR why is Dutfields yard selected.

Wickerman is spot on when he talks of the excitement of risk that some serial killers may feel or is the location making a point. This is not so much theory but based on the fact that other locations are nearby which would have been far more suitable than an open singing and dancing venue.

If it was JTR then it was an active choice.

In the case of Hanbury Street as far as I know there was a closed front door which would have to be entered. This could not have been an opportunistic selection as how would Chapman and JTR have known. It just looks like a house.

If there are other discreet locations yards, alleyways in the are again why there. What is the relationship between location and victim/offender. For example I think it was Trevor who said Chapman used to go the Hanbury Street. That would be a firm connection.

There really are opportunities if we try to resist putting theory before evidence. I am finding it difficult, but thought I would share my thoughts. Sorry rambling, tired

NW

I agree. I'm not using diagrams, just an abbreviation - posts are so lengthy here. That's not a dig at yours, but the incredible circularity of discussions is striking!

Wickerman's observation is too obvious to need making, and renders analysis pointless. Sometimes the obvious is useful, but not something so banal and patronising. Perhaps I shouldn't have reacted.

For a newcomer, it's obvious there are so many simmering hatreds here! You quote this Trevor - all of whose points seem fascinating. Due to some history I'm unaware of, they just get dissed. Ditto for loads of others. I guess it's inevitable, but it comes to be about someone defending their position (or so it seems) and asserting their ownership/authority.

And why is it personal, if someone believes poor Chapman was killed earlier or later? Ditto for any issue here. It's mostly just comical punch-ups.

I'm sure it's maddening me saying - let alone mocking - this!

[A P Tomlinson]

You cannot answer yes or no?

You do this a lot. You demand specific answers to specific questions, not to prove a theory, but to simply win a row.

You have STILL to even address the question I have asked you to answer several times now.

What evidence is there that supports or corroborates Phillips' 4.30 estimate? NOt "witnesses are unreliable so he might have been right"
Actual evidence of any substance that corroborates his guess.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

I was looking for situations that reflect the same type of circumstances. The initial charts or graphs, obviously committed to memory as would be necessary when working in the field. But then recognising the standard formulas do not take into account the true situation of temperature & conditions of the body.

Just now I see one similar..

Numerous formulae have been suggested over the last century taking this into account, each with varying degrees of accuracy noted but all of which faced problems in their application to field work due to differences predicted by body position, location or temperature reading, or the presence of clothing (Glaister, 1942; Marshall and Hoare, 1962). It has also been noted that such standardized curves may not take into account other factors such as natural differences in body temperature at the time of death, wind speed, and surface area-to-volume ratio. For example, thinner individuals tend to cool much more quickly. Individual variations such as these have led to suggestions that this PMI estimation approach holds little value when applied to human remains in real criminal investigations (Sutherland et al., 2013).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/algor-mortis

The bold sentence above reflects Phillips situation, when he arrives at Hanbury St. he applies the knowledge that his profession accepts as standard.
This is his "at least two hours, possibly more", because the standard would reflect, 2+ Hours.

However, real-world circumstances; the cool temperatures, the mutilated torso, & extreme loss of blood, require the revision of the "standardized curves", which is the 2+ hours, expressed in words as "at least two hours, possibly more".

You can't split 2+, it's a complete statement in itself, due to the fact the tables are complied from several corpses. When a group of corpses drop in temperature, but individually at 120, 125, 130 or 135 minutes (by way of example), it is not possible to split the group. The whole range are expressed as 2+ hours.
You can split the expression in words, which in effect is cheating, but that is only because someone took the liberty of changing numbers into words.

The 2+ is a groups, which must be corrected as a group (Phillips's Caveat) due to the extreme conditions not taken into account in the standard tables, or "standardized curves".
In reality I think you know this, it's not difficult to understand. I'm not sure a couple of other posters here really understand the simplicity of it, but I have a sneaking suspicion you do.

Hi Jon,

If the text that you boldened is examined the words "standardized curves" is mentioned. As you would know, charts that are produced from empirical data are statistically shown to confirm to a bell curve with standard deviations that represent 68%, 95% and 99.7% degrees of certainty. Chandler's notebook tells us that Phillips decided at the crime scene that Annie's TSD fell under the curve in the region of 2 hours or more. This would I think, according to "standardized curves", be a result derived from a standardised bell curve rather than a tick the box chart. Following the autopsy he has re-assessed his opinion and shifted the time on the curve rather than unticking one box and ticking another. As Herlock suggested, this is a case that has never before been included on a bell chart sample. I don't see it as a process of splitting groups, but shifting position on a curved bell chart. Perhaps locating an actual historical graph or table would clarify this divergence of opinion. It would also be interesting to locate Eddowes on such a chart or table.

In the meantime, please allow me to relieve your suspicion that I actually know you are right and am being deliberately perverse (I hear a background chorus of "he's not just acting dumb" ). There is no pot of gold at either end of the rainbow, and we are, after all, debating the verbal expression of a ToD estimate which is acknowledged as inaccurate anyway.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

For a newcomer, it's obvious there are so many simmering hatreds here! You quote this Trevor - all of whose points seem fascinating. Due to some history I'm unaware of, they just get dissed. Ditto for loads of others. I guess it's inevitable, but it comes to be about someone defending their position (or so it seems) and asserting their ownership/authority.

Hi Paul,

Astute observations. The pillorying of Trevor's opinions has become a sport to some, but when it extends to impugning his career as a detective it goes beyond deplorable IMO.

Cheers, George

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

Astute observations. The pillorying of Trevor's opinions has become a sport to some, but when it extends to impugning his career as a detective it goes beyond deplorable IMO.

Cheers, George

Was he an actual detective? His posts seem interesting, so that would make sense. They're also concise and no nonsense.

Above all what strikes a newbie is the incredible sense of ownership some display, as if it's their territory. There's also bogus credentialism.

I don't doubt I'll be doing the same - probably already have - since the temptation to try and 'win' points is immense. That's why I take the piss so much. It's a serious and worthwhile area, but also riddled with absurdities and discussions akin to those on how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. No doubt some pedant will provide a copy and paste link, showing they can Google and cut/paste.

Another example of someone needlessly mocked is Christer. I'll take the piss out of Lechmere as a candidate, the poor sod. But Christer's approach seems exemplary to me - he's polite but forceful and his contributions (to a novice) seem huge. I think many are just jealous. He's also non-patronising and doesn't assert some fake authority. Obviously many disagree - this is just how it seems to an outsider.

The very worst aspect is the semantic obsession with proving words mean one thing or another - which can never be settled. Especially when someone goes mad over loose/ambiguous wording in another's post.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Trevor,

My question here is, did outdoor prostitution sometimes occur in Whitechapel and Spitalfields between dawn and dusk? If so, I don't know what would have been a better place for it than Dutfield Yard. It did provide some measure of privacy, more than most outdoor locations. It was also a place that the police didn't patrol, so if they were seen there, they at least wouldn't be seen by someone who would arrest them.

We sort of have an idea that they did.

[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.

But... DOCTOR SAID FOUR THIRTY!!!!!!!!!

[GBinOz]

Was he an actual detective? His posts seem interesting, so that would make sense. They're also concise and no nonsense.

Hi Paul,

You may enjoy Trevor's video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=1011s&ab_channel=dickcopy

Cheers, George

[A P Tomlinson]

In the case of Hanbury Street as far as I know there was a closed front door which would have to be entered. This could not have been an opportunistic selection as how would Chapman and JTR have known. It just looks like a house.

Not a criticism, just a point.

If you look at the photos of the front of 27/29 Hanbury Street you'll notice that there are three front doors practically next to each other.
If you lived back then you'd know that there were passages running through terraced properties granting direct access to the back without having to go through the main part of the rooms in the house. (The old nightsoilmen would have not been welcome dragging their treasures through the living areas...)

That central door was a doorway to such a yard. A lot of those passages were simply open, or may have had a gate at the yard end. Hanbury Street was built with doors to the passage, and a set of stairs leading to landings on the other levels.
The yard, and stair landing on occasion, was also known to "plenty" of nocturnal shaggers. (See my post #6132 above in reply to Lewis' query about whether they were at it between dawn and dusk.)

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

You may enjoy Trevor's video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=1011s&ab_channel=dickcopy

Cheers, George

Thanks George - I love these videos. Also the ones by Edward Stowe (or Stow), when he walks around the area.