The Echo, 10th November 1888

[Dave O]

Thanks for that last, Stewart, and I do think we rather agree. Macdonald's got to have Phillips there to at least state the cause of death. I think they're headed for a second session, and then this jury issue derails it.

I'm sure you're right about losing some people with the procedure. I'm glad you're not one of them. I tend to geek out on the procedure just because I find it so helpful, and there's all this conflict behind it.

Best,
Dave

[Stewart P Evans]

Adjourn

Stewart,
What I was getting at on Sunday when I had to leave off through being late for an engagement,was the ancient principle of a "jury" ,enshrined in British law, meaning the right to be tried by your peers. Therefore,since the coroner"s court had a jury too, wasn"t it the case that the jury were the ones with the power to decide, not the coroner or police ? And that therefore they had the right to decide on the case being adjourned?
As you know so much about the way things are run in these matters, I wondered if you might be able to clarify the role,specifically, of an English Jury at a Coroner"s Court?
Many Thanks,
Norma

Norma, an inquest jury is a totally different thng to a trial jury. In many inquest cases I dealt with a jury wasn't even used as the whole proceeding and finding was the coroner's. Now, I believe, although I stand to be corrected, they don't have juries at inquests.

In the case of a Victorian inquest the decision to adjourn was the coroner's although to a degree this would be dictated by the actions of the jury. Hence we have Macdonald raising the question of the jury as to whether they wished to adjourn to hear further evidence. He then gave his opinion that this was 'very unnecessary' as it would involve a further sitting of the court which would 'cause expense and trouble.' He stated that cause of death was already established and that the police would deal with the matter of any suspects, such suspects being tried by a criminal court should they be found.

Thus influenced by Macdonald they returned the verdict of 'wilful murder against some person or persons unknown', and the hearing was ended.

[Phil Carter]

Thanks for that last, Stewart, and I do think we rather agree. Macdonald's got to have Phillips there to at least state the cause of death. I think they're headed for a second session, and then this jury issue derails it.

I'm sure you're right about losing some people with the procedure. I'm glad you're not one of them. I tend to geek out on the procedure just because I find it so helpful, and there's all this conflict behind it.

Best,
Dave

Hello Dave,

This is from The Pall Mall Gazette, 13th November 1888

WHY DID THE INQUEST CLOSE SO ABRUPTLY?

Some surprise was created among those present at the inquest in the Shoreditch Town Hall by the abrupt termination of the inquiry, as it was well known that further evidence would be forthcoming. The coroner himself distinctly told the jury that he was only going to take the preliminary portion of Dr G. B. Phillips's evidence the remainder of which would be more fully given at the adjourned inquiry. No question was put to Dr Phillips as to the mutilated portions of the body, and the coroner did not think fit to ask the doctor whether any portions of the body were missing. The doctor stated to the coroner during the inquiry that his examination was not yet completed. His idea was that by at once making public every fact brought to light in connection with this terrible murder, the ends of justice might be retarded. The examination of the body by Dr Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six and a half hours.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Pall Mall Gazette

Hello Dave,
This is from The Pall Mall Gazette, 13th November 1888
best wishes
Phil

I have a run of the Pall Mall Gazette from 1888, here is the full article mentioned in original form -

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stewart,

Many thanks for posting the original.

best wishes

Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

No Problem

Hello Stewart,
Many thanks for posting the original.
best wishes
Phil

No problem Phil, I had forgotten all about it until you mentioned it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Could it be that the police investigation was not complete with regards to the question of whether the heart was missing or not, or a suggestion that it could have been burnt

i am given to understand that officers later retuned to Miller Court and conducted an examination as to what had actually been burnt in the fire.

[Natalie Severn]

Norma, an inquest jury is a totally different thng to a trial jury. In many inquest cases I dealt with a jury wasn't even used as the whole proceeding and finding was the coroner's. Now, I believe, although I stand to be corrected, they don't have juries at inquests.

In the case of a Victorian inquest the decision to adjourn was the coroner's although to a degree this would be dictated by the actions of the jury. Hence we have Macdonald raising the question of the jury as to whether they wished to adjourn to hear further evidence. He then gave his opinion that this was 'very unnecessary' as it would involve a further sitting of the court which would 'cause expense and trouble.' He stated that cause of death was already established and that the police would deal with the matter of any suspects, such suspects being tried by a criminal court should they be found.

Thus influenced by Macdonald they returned the verdict of 'wilful murder against some person or persons unknown', and the hearing was ended.

Many Thanks Stewart.That is all I wanted to know,
Best
Norma

[Hunter]

Could it be that the police investigation was not complete with regards to the question of whether the heart was missing or not, or a suggestion that it could have been burnt

i am given to understand that officers later retuned to Miller Court and conducted an examination as to what had actually been burnt in the fire.

I believe you are correct there Trevor. I think it was Abberline himself that did so.

[Dave O]

Hi Norma,

Just to touch on Stewart's post, it's correct that today juries don't usually figure in inquests, they're reserved for cases that involve death while in custody. They used one in the Diana inquest, which saw a succession of coroners. One of them, Baroness Butler-Sloss, stepped down because she felt she didn't have enough experience with jurors to continue on with that case.

But Victorian inquests always used juries. Stewart is again right to say that inquest jurors differ from trial juries--I would add that jurors were active participants in inquests in that they don't just sit there and not allowed to interact, they had the ability to ask questions and in the jury oath, were invited to use their own experience to help with what was a preliminary mission to determine facts, which is all that inquests were.

In order for the jury to return a verdict, they had to have access to the evidence. Part of the coroner's job is to provide that access, and if you examine some questionable inquests that went up to the Queen's Bench for review, one of the things the justices look at was whether the coroner had inhibited the jury in examining evidence. If you're interested in examining standards of coroner-jury relationship, two cases are helpful: Queen v Sylvester 1860 (for Francis Saville Kent, inquest upheld), and Queen v Carter 1876 (Charles Bravo, inquest quashed).

Stewart and Phil: thank you for that from the Pall Mall Gazette. If Phillips wasn't finished, then that would seem to account for Macdonald's apparently not having notified him to attend; presumably he means to have him at a second session as we've discussed.

Cheers,
Dave

PS Here in the States, I recently served as a juror in a murder case and was very surprised when the judge allowed us to submit questions in writing, and he would ask them in court (exercising discretion). After the trial was over, I asked him about that procedure and he explained that he'd picked it up in a conference he'd attended and found that he liked it. This was my second experience as a juror in a murder trial, and in the first, we were not allowed to interact at all.

[Phil Carter]

Stewart and Phil: thank you for that from the Pall Mall Gazette. If Phillips wasn't finished, then that would seem to account for Macdonald's apparently not having notified him to attend; presumably he means to have him at a second session as we've discussed.

Hello Dave,

Seemingly so, yet, my reading of this condradicts that intension, as he clearly advises the jury to end it on the first day.

He is told by Phillips that he (Phillips) isn't finished with all the post mortem results, then he offers Phillips an opportunity, seemingly, to attend the 2nd session, then notifies, (mentioning the request of the police etc) the jury that if cause of death is clear, they can declare their verdict and go home! Thereby no second session.

It is indeed a strange set of circumstances! And as approximate or exact time of death hasn't been supplied by the doctor doing the post mortem, I wonder if the inquest was complete, in a legal sense?


best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe you are correct there Trevor. I think it was Abberline himself that did so.

Well i guess that still leaves a major doubt "was it taken away" or "not"

My own personal beleif is that it was not taken away by the killer.

An issue as important as that would have come to the forefront. If it had been there why was there a need for officers to go back and check what was left in the firegrate. Of course we do not know the result of that enquiry.

Furthermore as i have previously reported several newpapers reported that the heart was in fact found in the room.

Just another one of many mysteries within a mystery

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave O,

You noted earlier that Macdonald's holding of the Kelly inquest was not politically driven.

What do you make of this?

Daily Telegraph, 14th November 1888—

"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."

Regards,

Simon

[Natalie Severn]

Only tonight Adam posted saying he didnt entirely trust Dr Phillips.........! Ofcourse there will probably be a reasonable explanation for him not considering himself a "free agent" but its a mysteriously worded memo ---Simon!

[Hunter]

Well i guess that still leaves a major doubt "was it taken away" or "not"

My own personal beleif is that it was not taken away by the killer.

An issue as important as that would have come to the forefront. If it had been there why was there a need for officers to go back and check what was left in the firegrate. Of course we do not know the result of that enquiry.

Maybe because it was missing and they were looking for it.