How important is this?

[Archaic]

As I was reading these response, I suddenly pictured secret government agents during the Blitz rushing outside, deliberately stacking all of Baxter's papers in a massive pile & painting a bright target on the top, then praying that the Nazi bombers would do them a favor.

Maybe the subsequent report just said "Filing problem corrected."

Best regards, Archaic

[John Savage]

Hi Archaic,

Whilst many records were lost due to the blitz the war posed another danger to all manner of archives.

In a country isolated from it's usual sources of supply almost all commodities were in short supply, including paper. There was a national campaign to save waste paper, in the home, the office, and even in governement. One archivist at the London County Council pointed out that if he kept coroners records for only ten years instead of fifteen, he could easily produce an extra half a ton of waste paper for the war effort. Another consequence of paper shortage was the re-use of old documents, the sheet being turned over to the blank back page which was then used for carbon copies of typed letters.

Rgds
John

[Dave O]

Hi all,

I don't know anything about Fenians. Back in 2005, John
Savage and Robert Linford accessed a fat file at the LMA, LCC/PC/COR/1/55, The Custody of Coroners' Records. The file is a collection of letters and memos that tell the story of the LCC's acquisition of coroners' records, and then once it had them, what it did with them. At times it's quite an entertaining read, if you're interested in these documents and what attitudes towards them were. I transcribed most of the file for a very lengthy article in Rip #69, which is keyword searchable. The following is barebones, so anyone wanting more should see the article.

Wynne Baxter kept his records in bound volumes. The originals would probably have gone to wherever a trial would have been, with the coroner maintaining a copy for his own benefit. After Baxter's death in 1920, these records came into the possession of his son Francis Baxter. Francis offered them to the London County Council as the LCC had been acquiring coroners' records for about 30 years, since inquests were publicly funded and in the interests of their preservation.

But as John says, storage was at a premium and many, many records had already been amassed. The acquisition of Baxter's volumes (over 840 of them) presented a major problem and actually led to the creation of the Home Office's 15 Year Rule, also in 1921. This actually wasn't a rule, but allowed counties the discretion to destroy records (dated after 1875) 15 years from the date of their creation. The Rule was suspended for a time during the 1930s--an inventory from this time shows the LCC had in its possession records from the Eastern district dating from the very end of Baxter's tenure. During wartime, the Rule was put back into practice in an effort to salvage paper, with the 15 Years cut down to 10 for the duration of the war, just as John has posted above.

Exempted from the 15 Year Rule, at all times, were inquest records related to murder and manslaughter.

Another inventory of inquest records in the LCC's possession, dating from 1954 (I believe, writing from memory here) does not list anything dating from Wynne Baxter's tenure. Presumably the bulk of his records, those that dealt with suicide, accidental death, etc. were destroyed for space.

However, it also seems to have been the practice in a couple of cases, that the executors of coroners' estates, before handing records over to the LCC, removed records of inquests that were funded by either entities from before the the LCC came into existence in 1889. So it's possible (I strongly suspect) that the records we're interested in, the stuff dealing with Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Stride, actually were acquired by the Middlesex County Council, since those inquests of 1888 were funded by rates from the County of Middlesex (which, perhaps, is how the Mary Jane Kelly depositions survived).

But a lot about the movements of these types of records isn't clear, why should we have the MJK records and not Baxter's, if they were acquired by the same authority, and if these were excepted from the 15 Year Rule. What is clear is that we're dealing with tons and tons of paper and likely not a lot of resources to manage it all.

Photo below is by Robert Linford!

Cheers,
Dave

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

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

[Examination] of members only – 3.0. 370. 18.2.21

London County Council.
___________________

CORONERS’ RECORDS.

Local Government (Records and Museums) Sub-Committee.

Report by Clerk of the Council.

16th February, 1921.

A letter has been received from Mr. F.W. Baxter, son and executor of the late Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, coroner for East London, offering to present to the Council 840 volumes of inquisitions belonging to the late coroner.

This is in accordance with a custom which has obtained many years for coroners’ records to be handed over to the Council on the death or retirement of a coroner, and the Committee will probably therefore decide to accept Mr. Baxter’s offer. Several such accumulations of records are now in the Council’s custody and are stored in various buildings under the control of the Chief Officer of the Public Control Department who is unable to find accommodation for more. The 840 volumes now offered must, if accepted, be stored at the New County Hall where I can make temporary arrangements for their accommodation.

It will be seen that if the policy of accepting these inquisitions is continued a very large demand is likely to be made [on] storage accommodation. I have, therefore, thought it desirable to put the Committee in possession of the facts connected with coroners’ inquisition.
Coroners’ inquisitions are commonly regarded as, by prescriptive right, the property of the coroner, who has been accustomed to charge fees when searches and extracts have been made in probate and other cases. In these circumstances their preservation may be grievously imperiled after the coroner’s death, and the necessity for some alteration in the law has been pointed out on many occasions.

The Royal Commission on Public Records recommended that provision should be made for the better custody and inspection of inter alia coroners’ records. In their report they called attention to the grave danger to which the records were exposed under the present system of custody, and expressed the opinion that the records “of this ancient Court” should be placed in some known and permanent custody. In the course of the Commission’s investigation the fact was elicited that the coroners’ returns sent to the Home Office for statistical purposes are destroyed after five years; therefore, should the original records be destroyed, no record other than certain statistical information would be available for after years.

The Council’s notion in the matter has, up to the present, been consistently in the direction of the preservation of coroners’ records. On 12th February, 1895, and again on 30th October, 1908, the Council passed resolutions on the subject of the amendment of the law relating to coroners, and on both occasions recommended that “proper records of all cases dealt with by the court, whether inquests be held or not, should be kept as records of the County”. In 1908, it began the practice, since continued, of making it one of the conditions of appointment of a coroner that he should keep records of every inquest and regard such records as county records. The same [practice], it may be observed, obtains in certain other areas, (e.g. see Report of Royal Commission on Public Records, 3rd Report A p.4.X2., in which it is suggested that the transfer should be made compulsory by Act of Parliament).

It is now customary for the executors of deceased coroners to hand over to the Council the records of inquests held by the coroner, and sometimes also of those accumulated by his predecessors. These collections were often very large and the pressure on the existing accommodation became acute. As a result, in 1919 the Public Control Committee considered the question of the necessity for retaining the records beyond a certain number of years. The coroners were consulted and the Chief Officer, Public Control, reported that their general opinion was that coroners’ inquisitions should not be destroyed, but be deposited with the Council as the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Public Records. A large amount of evidence was given, for example, as to who should preserve the records, but their permanent preservation appears to have been treated as a matter of course.

I question whether the value of these records is commensurate with the very large amount of accommodation required for them, and in my opinion, it would be desirable to fix a period beyond which they need not be preserved. Such period should not, I suggest, exceed 25 years. In this connection, I may point out that coroners’ records are classified in the Royal Commission’s report as “local records of a public nature” and are placed in the same category as those of various judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. Should, therefore, the Sub-Committee favour the suggestion which I have put forward, the advice of the Master of the Rolls should first be sought as to the propriety of adopting such a course.

(Sgd.) JAMES BIRD,

Clerk of the Council.

The County Hall, S.W.

[Septic Blue]

The answer to one question may lie in the quote from Adam Wood's dissertation...

...

...On 13 December 1886 he was elected to replace the late Sir John Humphreys as Coroner County of Middlesex (Eastern District) with 1,401 votes, beating Dr Roderick MacDonald into second place with 1,069 votes....
(my emphasis)

That means his pre-Ripper things were of only 2 years in that district as Coroner.

In accordance with an Order in Council, of 3 May 1888, the Eastern District of the Coronership of the County of Middlesex was divided as follows:

North-Eastern District (Roderick MacDonald, by Election):
- The Parish of All Hallows Tottenham
- The Parish of St. Mary Stoke Newington
- The Parish of St. John at Hackney
- The Parish of St. Luke
- The Liberty of Glasshouse Yard
- The Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch
- The Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Parish of St. Mary Stratford Bow

South-Eastern District (Wynne Baxter, by Appointment):
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Portion within the County of Middlesex)
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (Portion within the County of Middlesex)
- The Parish of St. George in the East
- The Parish of St. John of Wapping
- The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
- The Parish of St. Paul Shadwell
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- The Parish of St. Anne Limehouse
- The Parish of Bromley St. Leonard
- The Parish of All Saints Poplar

---------

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1888, the County of London was established on 21 March 1889. The North-Eastern and South-Eastern Districts of the Coronership of the County of Middlesex were consequently re-constituted as the North-Eastern and Eastern* Districts of the Coronership of the County of London.

* While the applicable area comprised the southeastern reaches of the County of Middlesex; it did not comprise the southeastern reaches of the newly established County of London.

As the Parish of All Hallows Tottenham was not a component of the newly established County of London, it was not included in the North-Eastern District of its Coronership.

---------

In accordance with an Order in Council, of 28 May 1894, the North-Eastern and Eastern Districts of the Coronership of the County of London were re-structured as follows:

North-Eastern District:
- The Parish of St. Mary Stoke Newington
- The Parish of St. John at Hackney
- The Parish of St. Luke
- The Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch
- The Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green

Eastern District:
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Portion within the County of London)
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (Portion within the County of London)
- The Parish of St. George in the East
- The Parish of St. John of Wapping
- The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
- The Parish of St. Paul Shadwell
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- The Parish of St. Anne Limehouse
- The Parish of St. Mary Stratford Bow
- The Parish of Bromley St. Leonard
- The Parish of All Saints Poplar

… the Liberty of Glasshouse Yard having been transferred from the North-Eastern District, to the Central District;

… the Liberty of Norton Folgate and the Parishes of Christ Church Spitalfields and St. Mary Stratford Bow having been transferred from the North-Eastern District, to the Eastern District.

[Dave O]

Hi Phil,

Just let me add an observation that when it's said that Wynne Baxter only had two years experience until this division happened in 1888, it's helpful to know that one of the rationales for dividing it, according to the Order in Council of 1888 that Colin's cited, was because Humphreys had been holding an average of six inquests a day and that this was thought to be too great a workload for one coroner and a deputy coroner to handle. So the Privy Council finally halved the district, not that it really solved that problem. Even after, in 1891 or 1892, Roderick Macdonald testified at the Old Bailey (for his officer's trial for fraud, verdict was guilty), that it wasn't unusual for him to hold twenty inquests in a week in the North-eastern district. When it came time to assess Macdonald's salary in 1893, the LCC gave him a raise, and since coroners' salaries were based on inquests held, mileage traveled, and population increases over the previous five years--that would indicate to me that the area thickened like sauce and sudden deaths continued to increase from 1888-1893. If you look at Baxter's inquest for Alice Mackenzie, he's prepared to open it on the same day she died--he has a jury already summoned and in place. This must mean that he had them already to hear another case previously arranged, and they've managed to squeeze in Mackenzie. And of course in 1920, I believe Baxter had his heart attack on a day he had six inquests as well.

It seems to me that in that period from Dec 1886 until July 1888, when it was still just a single coroner's district, Baxter and Collier must have seen some pretty heavy activity with lots and lots of inquests. It must have been a thick two years, or year and a half, criss-crossing the ground as he traveled from inquest to inquest, presumably six times a day on average as Humphreys had, six days a week. That's a lot of ground covered.

Personally though, I don't think it lends any particular credence to the organ selling idea or that Baxter was in some sort of privileged position to name suspects, because I don't think he was. He simply organized and presided over a preliminary investigation meant to collect and discover facts on behalf of the public, and once the inquest was over, so was his role pretty much, besides paperwork. He's on to the next case, and really, they had no idea who was responsible for these murders.

You know that for a case that goes to trial, these inquests would just be footnotes, but in our situation, without a trial, these press accounts of them are a major source of information, usually it's all first person stuff, and it's referred to and quoted every day here and in any book you read. I think that's where the real value of coroners like Wynne Baxter lies, at least historically: preserving and probing narration.

Cheers,
Dave

[perrymason]

Dave and Colin, really appreciate the info that youve provided on this matter of the record keeping and responsible parties for preserving and/or maintaining of said records....but Im not sure that you are addressing another key component of the alledged remarks by Baxter that seems of concern to Phil and of great interest to both he and I....the possibility that some records concerning the cases were thought by contemporary authorities to contain information that extended beyond the capacities and authorities of local policing....matters concerning anarchist Fenians at that point in time HAD to be considered of National Importance and as such be under the umbrella of a Special Branch or Home Office investigation.

If Baxter suggested some Fenian involvement, coupled with Macnaughtens comments concerning the possible connection of the Balfour Assassination Plot and The Ripper crimes......doesnt that infer that likely some Ripper related documents would then be absorbed by the aforementioned organizations?

I believe Ive sussed Phil's position on this accurately...if not, speak up please Phil.

Best regards gents

[Phil Carter]

I believe Ive sussed Phil's position on this accurately...if not, speak up please Phil.

Mike,

Yes, you have indeed. Nailed it. Thank you.

Dave , Colin... the articles etc and the explanations, from the Rip 69, all be it the bones, were of great help. Dave, regarding the OTHER missing documents whereabouts, which you question the whereabouts to, it is indeed strange, especially as we have the Kelly stuff. And your explanation of workloads is very enlightening...thank you. Thank you all

best regards to all

Phil

[Dave O]

Hi Michael and Phil,

I wish I knew such things about the way documents move! It's quite an interesting little subfield. All I know about them is what I've seen documented, and without documentation I really have no way of knowing anything. Even with it, it still leaves pieces of the jigsaw missing, as you see. I think I've stopped believing in getting answers, I now only believe in gaining the ability to ask better questions

Cheers,
Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hi Michael and Phil,

I wish I knew such things about the way documents move! It's quite an interesting little subfield. All I know about them is what I've seen documented, and without documentation I really have no way of knowing anything. Even with it, it still leaves pieces of the jigsaw missing, as you see. I think I've stopped believing in getting answers, I now only believe in gaining the ability to ask better questions

Cheers,
Dave

Dave,

Many thanks, again...also to John and Colin...

I have been quiet for a day or two looking into a part of the jigsaw that you mention. Hopefully I will be able to post it soon.

best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

Hi Archaic,

Whilst many records were lost due to the blitz the war posed another danger to all manner of archives.

In a country isolated from it's usual sources of supply almost all commodities were in short supply, including paper. There was a national campaign to save waste paper, in the home, the office, and even in governement. One archivist at the London County Council pointed out that if he kept coroners records for only ten years instead of fifteen, he could easily produce an extra half a ton of waste paper for the war effort. Another consequence of paper shortage was the re-use of old documents, the sheet being turned over to the blank back page which was then used for carbon copies of typed letters.

Rgds
John

Hi, John.
That's an excellent point; thank you for sharing it.

I really enjoy acquiring "obscure knowledge"... you never know when it might come in handy!

Cheers, Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

One more thing I have picked up...
I believe I am correct in saying that there were Fenians in 1888 aspiring to assasinate Balfour.
In connection with this, according to the A-Z

Macnaghten is not known to have played any part in detecting Irish terrorism, he may have heard and recorded suspicion of a Fenian as the Ripper, prior to hearing the information that convinced him the Ripper was Druitt.

Can this be connected perhaps with our mate Wynne Baxter's comments to the Home Office and or the response he had back?

best wishes all

Phil

[Phil Carter]

....the possibility that some records concerning the cases were thought by contemporary authorities to contain information that extended beyond the capacities and authorities of local policing....matters concerning anarchist Fenians at that point in time HAD to be considered of National Importance and as such be under the umbrella of a Special Branch or Home Office investigation.

Hello all,

In relation to this.. please consider the following...

1) Anderson's filed notes state that Williamson went to France and frightened off the organizer of the Jubilleee Bomb Plot. That was in 1887.
2) Monro wrote 15 years later that it was Melville in 1887, but Williamson in 1888.
3) Anderson met Le Caron in Paris in 1888 (see Mike Covell's excellent thread)

It is with this in mind that we remember that Anderson was appointed Assistant commissioner for Crime on the very day Polly Nichol's was murdered. He selected Swanson to supervise the case, and on the day of Chapman's murder left for Switzerland on his sick leave prescribed for by Dr Gilbert Smith, recalled from the continent in light of the double murders (Sept 30th) , and given personal responsibility for the case by Henry Matthews and Sir Charles Warren.

It seems clear to me that Anderson's trip abroad, at the worst of times, was NOT for health reasons. I think he had both his "Fenian-buster" hat on, as well as his AS Crime hat on. And the stopping of a man called Walsh, a mysterious fellow, (has anyone any knowledge of this man btw?)
of the planned assasination of Balfour was the result in this meeting with Le Caron.

It would be normal to present it so that nobody was meant to know why he went abroad. The ill health thing could well have been a ruse. After all, confuse and counter confuse is a very normal thing in espionage. And the obvious, of course, that Secret Dept actions were all done on the QT.

And I believe the same thing happened with the variances in theories by these top policemen. Druitt, Polish Jew, etc etc. Confuse and counter confuse. Macnaghten had his outlet in George Sims. And Sims printing his friend's theory helped.
Helped to keep the masses quiet and kill off any further speculation with the Parnell Commission on the horizon perhaps? Especially IF Wynne Baxter's observations were AMONGST the views that were being recieved at the Home Office. Henry Matthews must have been a worried man indeed.

....Tinker tailor soldier spy......

best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

You know that for a case that goes to trial, these inquests would just be footnotes, but in our situation, without a trial, these press accounts of them are a major source of information, usually it's all first person stuff, and it's referred to and quoted every day here and in any book you read.

That's an excellent point, Dave, I agree with you.

Because we lack any court testimony in this case,
we have a tendency to look upon contemporary press reports as if they constituted 'evidence', and of course they do not.

The news articles relating to the Whitechapel murders are a complex blend of facts, opinions, errors, discrepancies, agendas and speculation,
as are media reports today.

Best regards, Archaic

[perrymason]

The news articles relating to the Whitechapel murders are a complex blend of facts, opinions, errors, discrepancies, agendas and speculation,
as are media reports today.

Best regards, Archaic

Hi Archaic,

The above is missing something,....so are the speculative remarks made by Senior Investigators about the cases, which quite literally range from suggesting that he was incarcerated in some form shortly after the murders to suggesting he evaded capture altogether... due to the fact that the powers that be lacked certain legal maneuvering as was available to the Police in France. He is anything from a member of society from the right side of the tracks who is depressed and has familial mental issues, to a drooling gutter dwelling feeb who is quite visibly mentally challenged and from the poorest of classes.

The three suspects in the Memorandum are a perfect example....one thief with medical knowledge implied,...(who it appears was incarcerated at that time of the murders).... one mentally handicapped street dweller, and a depressed unemployed cricketer with a family history of mental illness.

What Phil is looking at I believe is is the question of is the information we get from the "trusted" sources the real story....or is it also a blend of opinion, or discrepancies, or speculation, or agendas as yet unknown.

It seems to me that within the various forces at that time there were some policies that sheltered information within the walls of the agency that held it, and there was no obligation or legal requirement that the information be shared as a common resource for any old investigations needs by another policing body.

Best regards Arch

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I was looking through the threads for more connections, as one does, not to "prove" or disprove, I might add, any idea put forward, when I came across this, from Natalie Severn. (the thread was to do with the Sept 17th letter, but that is not the issue)...

I respectfully quote Natalie Severn here..

........I have deduced about the Home Office,in the released files of which this letter was allegedly found in between two pieces of paper.I know Sir Edward Jenkinson had more than the ear of the Home Office in 1888 and was in constant touch with his political masters.Everything he knew he took pains to hide from Anderson and Monro,also based there in 1888.Jenkinson claims that after they managed to oust him from his rooms in Dublin Castle,he burnt all his papers so neither Monro nor Anderson could gain sight of them.We also know that Anderson was equally secretive and took great pains to hide everything from everyone,except Monro. A letter such as the Sept 17th letter could,in my view,have been sent to either Jenkinson or Anderson or even Matthews, the Home Secretary himself, who Lusk had just written to about the possibility of a reward.It is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that each and everyone of these men could have had reason to keep that letter under their hat-telling nobody about it.After all this was the headquarters of disinformation,of secret service work,work that was kept secret from the mainstream police and even from politicians when need be.
This is why I keep an open mind about that letter.It may well be a fake,but the reasons you give do not hold water with the backdrop in secret service work,closed files---some still and in perpetuity.One of these appararently has the heading, "The Whitechapel Murders".So no, the letter need never have reached an"official file".
my emphasis

In relation to THIS thread, which revolves around Baxter's comment about Fenians/Anderson/Secret Dept files/disinformation, I find this comment very interesting indeed. Would anyone please kindly expand upon the apparent existance of a file apparently entitled "The Whitechapel Murders" WITHIN the Secret Dept Files?

best wishes

Phil