The Echo, 10th November 1888

[Stewart P Evans]

Question 3

Question 3 - Although there would be 'copious notes' made by the doctors and no doubt the result of the autopsy was quickly arrived at and submitted, these details were not released to the press.

Obviously someone, possibly a local police officer or a doctor, had told the press something and it had been indicated that the doctors had agreed on the result. Also it was stated that it was 'asserted' that a joint report by Phillips and Bond had been submitted. This may have been a reporter's take on what he had been told, possibly each doctor saying they would be submitting a report and the reporter assuming it would be a joint report.

That it was being submitted to Warren is a natural thing to say as he was the Chief Commissioner and did not disappear instantly on submitting his resignation. The full post mortem was conducted on the morning of Saturday 10 November 1888, at the mortuary.

[Stewart P Evans]

Question 4

I have already touched upon aspects of question 4, and although Warren had submitted his resignation on 8 November 1888, he was still nominally Chief Commissioner (until replaced) and would at this time have still been at Scotland Yard.

Although dated 16 November 1888 on the cover and stamp, the actual document would have been submitted earlier by Bond. It is not a 'new' post mortem report, it is a record of Bond's findings on his initial examination of the body for the information of the police. The post mortem report that was used for the coroner would be the full autopsy report as submitted by Dr. Phillips, the main medical man in the case. This report has, apparently, not survived so we do not know the full content. And, as we know, Phillips withheld his medical evidence at the inquest which was prematurely curtailed in an unusual manner.

Although the report is credited to Bond it would appear that the handwriting is not Bond's but may be that of his assistant Hebbert. It would not be unusual for an assistant to make notes at the dictation of a surgeon carrying out an examination. This point I discussed on the boards with Stephen Gouriet Ryan several years ago and we agreed that the handwriting was probably not Bond's (in which case it is an error in the Ultimate to state it was in Bond's handwriting although that was the belief at the time). Below is the last (seventh) page of those notes.

[Stewart P Evans]

Bond

In view of the foregoing I see no reason to believe that there is anything 'suspicious' about the Bond report returned in 1987 and, although probably in Hebbert's hand, it is still the findings and words of Bond.

In saying it represents the initial post-mortem examination of the body of Kelly by Bond we indicate that this is distinct from the full autopsy carried out the following day at the mortuary. This should clear up any idea that there was something 'wrong' or underhanded about it.

As I have indicated, this report by Bond appears to have be specially made for the police (to accompany his 'profile') whilst the full and proper post mortem report would be that compiled by Phillips for the coroner (and the inquest at which it was not read out).

[Stewart P Evans]

Ernest Millen

There appears to be some confusion in the foregoing posts regarding the material returned to New Scotland Yard in the late 1980s.

The Bond post mortem report and accompanying papers (some on Crippen also) were returned in 1987, posted at Croydon from an anonymous sender. It is still not known who had been in possession of these papers nor who returned them.

The photograph album was returned in 1988 and had been in the possession of retired Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ernest Millen whose family returned it.

[Archaic]

Hi, Stewart. Thanks so much for the clarification, it's been quite helpful.

Best regards, Archaic

[Archaic]

Question re: The Echo, Dr Phillips' Evidence & "Adjourned Inquiry"

I have a related question, which was raised by the wording of a statement in 'The Echo' of Nov.12, 1888.

DR. PHILLIPS' EVIDENCE.
Dr. George Bagster Phillips was next called. He deposed - I am divisional surgeon of police, H division. I was called by the police on Friday morning, about eleven o'clock. On proceeding to Miller's-court I found a room, the door of which led to a passage running out of 26, Dorset-street, having two windows, two of the panes were broken, and finding the door locked I looked through the lower of the broken panes, and satisfied myself that the mutilated corpse lying on the bed was not in need of any immediate attention from me. I also came to the conclusion that there was nobody else upon the bed, or within view, to whom I could render any professional assistance. Having ascertained that probably is was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1.30, when the door was broken open.

By whom? - Mr McCarthy, I believe. I believe directions to do so were given by Superintendent Arnold. When I arrived in the yard the premises were in charge of Inspector Beck. On the door being opened it knocked against the table. The table was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead. The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry. She had only her nightdress upon her, and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition in the room. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of her 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.

The Coroner said that the other portion of Dr. Phillips' evidence would be given at the adjourned inquiry.


>> Can anyone shed any light on the last sentence regarding "the adjourned inquiry"?

Thanks and best regards, Archaic

Link to THE ECHO Nov. 12, 1888 http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

[Stewart P Evans]

Unusual

I have a related question, which was raised by the wording of a statement in 'The Echo' of Nov.12, 1888.
DR. PHILLIPS' EVIDENCE.
Dr. George Bagster Phillips was next called. He deposed - I am divisional surgeon of police, H division. I was called by the police on Friday morning, about eleven o'clock. On proceeding to Miller's-court I found a room, the door of which led to a passage running out of 26, Dorset-street, having two windows, two of the panes were broken, and finding the door locked I looked through the lower of the broken panes, and satisfied myself that the mutilated corpse lying on the bed was not in need of any immediate attention from me. I also came to the conclusion that there was nobody else upon the bed, or within view, to whom I could render any professional assistance. Having ascertained that probably is was advisable that no entrance should be made into the room at that time, I remained until about 1.30, when the door was broken open.
By whom? - Mr McCarthy, I believe. I believe directions to do so were given by Superintendent Arnold. When I arrived in the yard the premises were in charge of Inspector Beck. On the door being opened it knocked against the table. The table was close to the left-hand side of the bedstead. The mutilated remains of a female were lying two-thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry. She had only her nightdress upon her, and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition in the room. The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of her 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.
The Coroner said that the other portion of Dr. Phillips' evidence would be given at the adjourned inquiry.
>> Can anyone shed any light on the last sentence regarding "the adjourned inquiry"?
Thanks and best regards, Archaic
Link to THE ECHO Nov. 12, 1888 http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

If this statement made by the coroner is reported correctly it must mean that at that point the opening of this inquest was going to be followed by an adjournment to a later day.

As has been remarked upon, it is most unusual that such an important inquest into a high-profile murder should be opened and closed upon the same day. Obviously Macdonald decided that he had heard enough for a verdict to be given by the jury and decided to close it.

You may recall the remarks made by jurors over the jurisdiction of the coroner, which displeased Macdonald, and the early closure also resulted in the detailed medical evidence never being heard.

It was noted that the police 'acquiesced in the closure of the inquest before the surgeon was recalled.' Another point to note is the fact that if the inquest had extended to a second day Hutchinson's evidence could also have been heard by the coroner.

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Stewart,
Your knowledge and actual experience of what is usual and unusual procedure at an Inquest is very valuable.What you suggest is what I would have thought to have been the proper conduct of such an important Inquest as that of Mary Kelly.
Several questions remain unsatisfactorily answered still for me and maybe its the case that nobody today can very easily answer some of these questions today because things have altered .
I hope you dont mind me drawing Dave O"s attention to your above post as although Colin and he have fed us with some superb data about the conduct of coroners and boundary issues and are attempting to resolve these questions by comparisons with other cases, the Whitechapel murders were unique in several respects and as you say their was a huge public interest in them as well as public fears and concerns .It appears to me that the jury at Inquests played a similar role to the Jury at a court of law in that it was part of the same bedrock of the English way of life---viz the entitlement to trial by your peers ---therefore -it was expected that the jury would in fact hear the evidence of Dr Phillips and any other witness such as George Hutchinson ?

I say this because as we dont have a "constitution" but a body of law do we not, that is passed by parliament and protected by the judges and enshrined in it for centuries is the right to trial by jury by our peers, alongside all sorts of things like the right to free assembly .New labour has erased some of these rights , but in 1888 the jurydecided.
must leave this for a few hours and return to it later -going to daughters for lunch......
Best Wishes
Norma

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I hope you will allow me to look at this in detail at a later date, as I am a little busy at present.

best wishes

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

I was suddenly made aware of the time when writing the above post which had to be abandoned in mid flow as I had left things so late----- so many apologies Stewart for my post becoming so garbled.
I must dig out the articles on Coroners and Inquests by Dave O,Robert and John Savage.
I need to know more about the process as it was in 1888 !
Best
Norma

[Dave O]

Jury

Hi Stewart, Archaic, Norma:

Stewart wrote: If this statement made by the coroner is reported correctly it must mean that at that point the opening of this inquest was going to be followed by an adjournment to a later day.AND: You may recall the remarks made by jurors over the jurisdiction of the coroner, which displeased Macdonald . . .

To me, what really sets the Kelly inquest apart from the others is the conflict with jury followed by a perceived interference with that jury. I think this is why Macdonald went from apparently telling them they would adjourn to advising that they shouldn't. I think it's clear he initially meant to adjourn--this inquest is abbreviated--cut short--and I put it down to this problem with the jury. Macdonald doesn't seem to have anticipated it and only 14 jurors are there (many thanks for your transcription of the Kelly inquisition in Sourcebook, Stewart). You need 12 to return a verdict, and in an ordinary case, 14 would be suitable. But the Kelly inquest is a sensational, high profile case that features conflict with and about the jury (something that the others don't). If they adjourn for a week or fortnight (as Macdonald suggests), and they don't get at least 12 men back, the inquest "drops"--it's over, no verdict, and they would have to start again. It's true that he could've fined an absent juryman, but that doesn't help the integrity of the proceedings. They will have to bring back witnesses, the new jury will have to view the body--if Kelly is buried, they will have to exhume her. Nasty business.

The jury at the Kelly inquest, to me, is key. Ironically, when you may have trouble with a jury, the answer is to add more jurymen. The coroner had a wide discretion in those days--his range then was 12-23. For a big murder case like Mary Kelly, he should've had 17 or 18, I think. Then you're pretty safe to adjourn and can afford to lose a couple of complainers. On the other hand, jurors weren't paid in Middlesex then--perhaps this was a factor, I don't know.

Cheers,
Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Indications

Hi Stewart, Archaic, Norma:
Stewart wrote: If this statement made by the coroner is reported correctly it must mean that at that point the opening of this inquest was going to be followed by an adjournment to a later day.AND: You may recall the remarks made by jurors over the jurisdiction of the coroner, which displeased Macdonald . . .
To me, what really sets the Kelly inquest apart from the others is the conflict with jury followed by a perceived interference with that jury. I think this is why Macdonald went from apparently telling them they would adjourn to advising that they shouldn't. I think it's clear he initially meant to adjourn--this inquest is abbreviated--cut short--and I put it down to this problem with the jury. Macdonald doesn't seem to have anticipated it and only 14 jurors are there (many thanks for your transcription of the Kelly inquisition in Sourcebook, Stewart). You need 12 to return a verdict, and in an ordinary case, 14 would be suitable. But the Kelly inquest is a sensational, high profile case that features conflict with and about the jury (something that the others don't). If they adjourn for a week or fortnight (as Macdonald suggests), and they don't get at least 12 men back, the inquest "drops"--it's over, no verdict, and they would have to start again. It's true that he could've fined an absent juryman, but that doesn't help the integrity of the proceedings. They will have to bring back witnesses, the new jury will have to view the body--if Kelly is buried, they will have to exhume her. Nasty business.
The jury at the Kelly inquest, to me, is key. Ironically, when you may have trouble with a jury, the answer is to add more jurymen. The coroner had a wide discretion in those days--his range then was 12-23. For a big murder case like Mary Kelly, he should've had 17 or 18, I think. Then you're pretty safe to adjourn and can afford to lose a couple of complainers. On the other hand, jurors weren't paid in Middlesex then--perhaps this was a factor, I don't know.
Cheers,
Dave

Valid thoughts Dave, although I feel that there were several factors at work here.

Macdonald and Wynne Baxter were the two coroners for East Middlesex and there are indications that this led to some rivalry. I believe that Baxter was claiming the considerable sum of £1,000 a year, for a five year period, by reason of the division of East Middlesex between the two of them. So the remarks of jurors regarding jurisdiction were guaranteed to annoy Macdonald.

Also it was probably still thought that Phillips should not give too much detail regarding the injuries inflicted, and, I believe, the police would be only too happy to see the inquest curtailed before too much detail was placed in the public domain, for various reasons. It would seem that Macdonald was not as determined as Baxter to have all the facts aired publicly.

It would appear that, at the inquest, Macdonald obtained police agreement to abruptly close the inquest that same day. This, of course, led to suspicion that the police wished to conceal something about their investigation and failure to arrest the murderer. It was also theorised that giving too much detail might lead to copycat killings.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart, all,

Stewart said:-

This point I discussed on the boards with Stephen Gouriet Ryan several years ago and we agreed that the handwriting was probably not Bond's (in which case it is an error in the Ultimate to state it was in Bond's handwriting although that was the belief at the time).

and further...

....although probably in Hebbert's hand, it is still the findings and words of Bond.

In conjunction with this, I refer to Ripperana, Issue no.56, April 2006, in which Stephen Gouriet Ryan states the following:-

"....the Bond report on Mary Kelly at the National Archives (MEPO/3135,ff. 10-18) is in fact, beyond question, in Dr.Hebbert's handwriting, not in Bond's. i.e. Dr. Bond had dictated its contents to Dr. Hebbert during the examinations..."

(my emphasis, but original underlining)

Also, again, Stewart said,

As I have indicated, this report by Bond appears to have be specially made for the police (to accompany his 'profile') whilst the full and proper post mortem report would be that compiled by Phillips for the coroner (and the inquest at which it was not read out).

All fair comments, I agree, Stewart, however may I point out something that I have noticed? Namely the following:-

From the Echo article on the 10th November..

the Echo, 10th November 1888

"...Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived. Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

(my emphasis)

Looking at the cover for the papers, it is also marked and ticked "H" division of the Metropoloitan Police. Please forgive me, but without having seen an example of Phillips' handwriting, and given that the indication (printed in the Echo) to the local police by Phillips is only "vaguely" given, and given that these notes are in themselves far from detailed (the missing pages notwithstanding) as Mr. Ryan himself says in Another look at Kelly's Heart Pt. II in the Criminologist/New Criminologist, I ask politely if in your discussion with Mr. Ryan you compared Phillips' handwriting to this document as well?

I only ask this as you can yourself see Ryan's "beyond question" compared to your own "probably" re Hebbert's handwriting.

I apologise for the delay in answering, thank you for your patience and any further consideration.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Evidence

Hello Stewart, all,
...
In conjunction with this, I refer to Ripperana, Issue no.56, April 2006, in which Stephen Gouriet Ryan states the following:-
"....the Bond report on Mary Kelly at the National Archives (MEPO/3135,ff. 10-18) is in fact, beyond question, in Dr.Hebbert's handwriting, not in Bond's. i.e. Dr. Bond had dictated its contents to Dr. Hebbert during the examinations..."
(my emphasis, but original underlining)
...
All fair comments, I agree, Stewart, however may I point out something that I have noticed? Namely the following:-
From the Echo article on the 10th November..
(my emphasis)
Looking at the cover for the papers, it is also marked and ticked "H" division of the Metropoloitan Police. Please forgive me, but without having seen an example of Phillips' handwriting, and given that the indication (printed in the Echo) to the local police by Phillips is only "vaguely" given, and given that these notes are in themselves far from detailed (the missing pages notwithstanding) as Mr. Ryan himself says in Another look at Kelly's Heart Pt. II in the Criminologist/New Criminologist, I ask politely if in your discussion with Mr. Ryan you compared Phillips' handwriting to this document as well?
I only ask this as you can yourself see Ryan's "beyond question" compared to your own "probably" re Hebbert's handwriting.
I apologise for the delay in answering, thank you for your patience and any further consideration.
best wishes
Phil

One must be careful not to allow too much credit to a press report. The police were wary about stating too much to the press and at this very early stage would certainly not be imparting too much to reporters. Much easier to fob them off by saying they had only 'vague' information.

I was a police officer for nearly thirty years, I worked with evidence as my bread and butter in that work, and I also had several dealings with questioned documents, handwriting and expert testimony. Only an expert in handwriting may give his opinion as to whether a sample of handwriting is done by a particular person or not. And, properly, such opinion requires the examination of original samples. I am not an expert in the analysis of handwriting so I would never say anything more positive than it 'appears to be', 'is probably' or 'looks like' when comparing samples for identification.

I do not know if Stephen Gouriet Ryan is an expert on handwriting nor exactly what he did to come to his 'beyond question' conclusion. But there you have the reason why I said probably - I am obviously being cautious. But it doesn't matter if its Hebbert's handwriting or not, what is beyond question is the fact that it is what Dr. Bond found on his initial examination of Kelly's body.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Many thanks for the reply. I wondered a little at such a positive and definitive statement from Mr. Ryan.

best wishes

Phil