Macdonald's District: North East Middlesex

[Dave O]

Hi Simon,

I'm afraid I don't know. Perhaps to his house? They kept records at their houses, so perhaps that's where they operated from. As the LCC chased down coroners' records and investigated Thomas Hammond, there's this bit that Robert Linford found. It's hard to make out so apologies for transcription errors. The reference is LMA/LCC/PC/COR/1/55, memorandum from the Chief Officer to the Public Control Committee, 18 March 1891. (edit: I think that should read 1892, this is just after the Hammond trial).

18 March, 1891.

To the Public Control

Committee

[Handwritten note “For (your) approval illegible date]

Custody of Coroners’ Inquisitions

____________________

The question of the custody of coroners’ Inquisitions was before the committee [illegible], but, in consequence of a [representation] made by the coroners that their courts were courts of record and that therefore they were responsible for the custody of the inquisitions, no further steps were taken in the matter.
During the recent investigation into Coroners’ disbursements [1] I ascertained that in Middlesex the Coroners’ Inquisitions were always sent with the monthly vouchers of disbursements to the County magistrates, and also to the Council [illegible] the first [four] months of their office, and that it was only after this question was raised that the practice was stopped.
The present system gives no guarantee that the inquisitions will be [preserved] [obstructed] for [County] purposes, and as [obstructed] [illegible] of fact I have found that [obstructed] of [the] inquisitions of the North [Eastern] District at the house of the Coroners’ Officer, while others were at the Coroner’s own house.
As it appears most desirable that a better system should be [adopted] I recommend:—
That the question be referred to the Solicitor, to advise the Committee as to what the powers of the Council are in the matter.

Chief Officer

[1] In January 1892, the Central Criminal Court found Thomas Hammond, the North East coroner’s officer, guilty of fraud and forging false expense vouchers. He was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Thank you. What a cornucopia of information.

You are what we call in England [though I live in the US] a diamond geezer.

Regards,

Simon

[Dave O]

Lol, thanks Simon.

Dave

[Hunter]

Am just now catching up with this thread... been fishing. LOL.

This is the way a thread should progress... provocative ideas that are substained or refuted by sound information and logic.

Dave your point about the politics is well taken and may have given me cause to re-evaluate as well.

[Stewart P Evans]

... The question of the custody of coroners’ Inquisitions was before the committee [illegible], but, in consequence of a [representation] made by the coroners that their courts were courts of record and that therefore they were responsible for the custody of the inquisitions, no further steps were taken in the matter....

"The question of the custody of coroners' Inquisitions was before the Committee some time since, but, in consequence of a representation made by the coroners..."

[Dave O]

Thanks very much, Hunter.

Hi Stewart,

I think that the writer is also calling depositions "inquisitions", so I think that in this document, he's referring to two classes of documents. This is something to beware of when you're reading the documents in the file--it's not always clear to which they're referring (at one point, Leonard Diplock points out the error).

The LCC had already tried to acquire depositions in the interest of preservation (and county inquests were funded out of the rates), but had been rebuffed by The Coroners Society. So the LCC began to acquire the records of deceased coroners, approaching their families and executors of estates for donations. They also seem to have required incoming coroners to agree that their records were county records before they appointed them. As the coroners who were popularly elected died (Diplock, Macdonald, Baxter, Langham in some cases), then they tried again and were successful. But it appears that records that predated the LCC were peeled off, presumably to be sent to the county of Middlesex (or in Langham's case, the City).

Inquisitions seem to have been forwarded along regularly, along with expense vouchers for reimbursement. Proof an inquest had actually been held, I suppose, but apparently that practice had been stopped.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave O]

Apologies Stewart--I thought you were responding to that section, but now I see that you were providing me part of what I couldn't make out in my transcription. Many thanks.

Dave

[Dave O]

Macdonald's letter to The Daily News

Many will be familiar with this, but I thought I'd put this up for those who may not have seen it. It can be found in Casebook's Press Project.

SIR, A remarkable incident in connection with the recent murders is that in no one instance has it been found that the victim made any noise or cry while being done to death. My assistant suggests a theory in reference to this very remarkable fact, which strikes me as having something in it, and as such ought to be made public. The theory is that the murderer goes about with a vial of rum or brandy in his pocket drugged with an opiate – such as a solution of morphia, which is almost if not quite tasteless; that he offers a swig of it to his victims (which they would all be
likely greedily to accept), when he meets them; that in about ten to twenty minutes the poison begins to do its work on constitutions well soaked with alcohol, and that then they are easily dispatched without fear of making any noise or call for assistance. Having been out of town lately for my holidays, I have not closely followed the evidence at the inquests, but there are two questions which would require clearing up if there is anything in this theory – 1st. Have the stomachs been ripped open to do away with the evidence of poisoning in this manner? and 2nd. Has any analysis of the contents of the stomach been made? – Yours respectfully,

R. MACDONALD.
Coroner for N.-East Middlesex.
65, Westferry-road, Millwall, E., Oct. 3 (Daily News, 4 October 1888)

*" Having been out of town lately for my holidays . . ." On 27 September 1888, Macdonald attended a land law reform meeting in Inverness (‘Land Law Reform,’ The Times, September 28 1888).

[Dave O]

Hi Simon,

I have an answer for you regarding notification, been a couple of years since you wondered about it. Better late than never, is what I say.

Often for Macdonald's inquests held in Bethnal Green, the police notification is included in the record (one is below). I'm pretty sure that in Mary Kelly's case, notification would also have gone to 11 Cricketfield Road, as this appears to have been Macdonald's central hub of operations that autumn, with many notifications being sent there. Since this is also the address that I find his officer Hammond invariably using as well (where other of Macdonald's officers were located elsewhere throughout the district, Hammond worked out of the hub), I think it's safe to conclude this was the spot.

This document is from MJ/SPC/NE, Box 3, Case No. 18, held at the LMA. This inquest for little Edwin Moore was the last of of four Macdonald held on Nov 10th 1888; Mary Kelly's was the next inquest Macdonald held.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave O]

Louisa Ellesden

Here's the record for Macdonald's inquest for Louisa Ellesden, who was the subject of double inquests in Feb and March 1889 because of the misalignment of the two eastern coroners' districts, as we discussed here awhile back.

This is out of Box 5 of Macdonald's records held at the LMA. The cover, partially filled out:

[Dave O]

Interior of the cover, testimony of James Ellesden

[Dave O]

Ellesden 3

Very brief testimony of the lodging house keeper followed by the attending medical witness. Record's pretty short--some are longer than others, but this isn't one of them. Well, I'd wondered what had happened to her and whether she was indoors when she died, so there it is. But I suppose the interest to me isn't the death itself, it's that it's a double inquest. I'd very much like to find an account of Baxter's inquest for her.

[Dave O]

From Box 1, Case No. 35 at the LMA, the front of the officer's request for an inquest, and you can see how the inquest changed venue as it followed the body.

I was surprised to find how very few inquests there were related to Spitalfields. I expected to find loads of them, but in a range from June 14 1888 to November 15 1888, totaling 384 inquests (with one missing record), I only found eleven or so.

Dave

[Hunter]

That's interesting, Dave.

The inquest above involves an infant (unfortunately not unusual).
Of the 11 or so that came from Spitafields, do you know how many - if any - were taken to a mortuary?

[Dave O]

Hi Hunter,

In the range I'm looking at, June 14-Nov 15 1888, for deaths that occurred in Spitalfields, it's just Mary Kelly who has clearly gone to a mortuary.

There are the two babies removed to the Norton Folgate court house; I'm not clear what sort of facility was there, or if there was one, why the bodies were taken there, or whether that might have been a viable alternative to taking Mary Kelly to Shoreditch. The officer involved in those cases was Benjamin Beavis, not Thomas Hammond; at Hammond's trial in 1891, Beavis is described as the keeper of that court house.

The rest are pub inquests and it's not clear whether they're taking bodies to the pubs or if they happen to just be nearby where the bodies were. On July 10 there were two inquests held at The Laurel Tree, 69 Brick Lane, and in a situation like that they'd use the same jury for both cases, who'd have to view not one, but two (or more) bodies, so it would make sense that they were all in one place. But it's just supposition and I may be wrong. Really, there's no indication that these bodies were moved at all (but I'm trying to be careful as I came across one case where removal isn't mentioned in the request for a warrant, only to find a witness saying it was taken away).

Other venues in Spitalfields were The Black Swan at 63 Hanbury street (where they held each of Elizabeth and John Sodo's inquests, who both lived at no. 65), the Paul's Head in Crispin street, and as you can see above with Mrs. Ellesden, there's also the Princess Alice. I'm not sure where that was.

They don't seem to have had a mortuary at all in Spitalfields during the period I'm looking at. Other parishes in the district had them.

You're right about the babies--I haven't counted them all yet, but my impression is that a great many of these 384 inquests dealt with the deaths of children.

Best,
Dave