Joyce A. Aros
Okay, Wayne....
Sat Jun 04, 17:41


I am pretty sure you didn't believe me when I said I only have a fourth grade education as I do not understand quite a bit of what you posted for me though I appreciate the information and will file it for future reference.

I understand some of it but it leaves me wondering why, if the approach to a coroner's report, in that time period, was so slipshod, why would the statute or whatever be listed in the first place? It sounds, from the wording, that it should be taken seriously by the coroner and his appointed jurors.

Is this only applied in Arizona or is it likely to be the same in most territories at the time? It appears that Matthews could apply the statute but you seem to suggest he has wiggle room.

Chapter IV, sections 9-12 (1877) indicate a finding of criminal means actually obligated the coroner to issue an immediate warrant for the arrest of the one or more responsible.

So how do we establish whether or not the finding was justified; dependant on the jury? Did they not establish that criminal means was employed; then why would the Grand Jury turn down their decision?

I really am not trying to be a smart-aleck; I am wondering how the Grand Jury got away with this...at least, in my eyes!

  • Inquests were fact finding tools...Wayne Sanderson, Sat Jun 04 13:10
    ...that were more aimed toward determining the means and manner of death more than any criminal responsibility. The need for them as a civil process was much greater before modern technical means. Many... more
    • Okay, Wayne.... — Joyce A. Aros, Sat Jun 04 17:41
      • Re: Okay, Wayne....Wayne Sanderson, Sat Jun 04 18:38
        The statute's wording requiring action under certain circumstances was intended to prevent the Coroner from using discretion to NOT hold an inquest, a check against showing favoritism by letting some slide... more
        • Oh Boy!...Joyce A. Aros, Sun Jun 05 14:49
          ...If I were not so intrigued, I would have disappeared a few posts ago, but old folks like me don't always learn and I think you are having some fun with me. I have some homework to do, but though... more
          • Re: Oh Boy!...Wayne Sanderson, Sun Jun 05 15:26
            I do have to go along with you on your opinion of the prosecutors- For seemingly smart guys, they were imbeciles. They trotted out their whole case, witness testimony, strategy and everything at a Preliminary... more
            • One last thought,,,,Joyce A. Aros, Mon Jun 06 8:11
              ...Wayne, I think our discussion has been really worthwhile from my side and I've learned some stuff I had considered but from a slightly different angle. I am not a historian; I tend to examine things... more
          • Re: Oh Boy!...Wayne Sanderson, Sun Jun 05 15:06
            Don't forget how the McLaury brother with the law degree showed up and insinuated himself into the ongoing hearing on the prosecution side and damn near hijacked the whole side's case. What I said about... more
            • So you must recognize my sympathy is with Ike ...Joyce A. Aros, Sun Jun 05 16:38
              ...in this situation. Obviously he did not understand what the procedure entailed, he was deeply emotionally involved, time was the enemy as well...and his ignorance of all of this caused him to repeat... more
              • Re: So you must recognize my sympathy is with Ike ...Wayne Sanderson, Sun Jun 05 16:46
                As I said before, this was a badly mishandled preliminary hearing on the government's part. They showed their entire hand and allowed things to be examined and refuted that should have never been heard... more
        • Re: Re: Okay, Wayne....Wayne Sanderson, Sat Jun 04 18:52
          To follow up: Arizona Territory in 1881 was an interesting place, criminal law-wise. One interesting feature is that even a private citizen could bring a criminal charge as a presentment to the court and... more