The Echo, 10th November 1888

[Dave O]

Hi Phil,

They're supposed to try to establish a time of death for Death Registration. Besides postmortem evidence, this is something they also do with the testimony of laypeople--"When'd you last see her?", for example. I think this is why Macdonald has Maxwell there--she's got something different to say about the time of death. My belief is that there was an intention to have Phillips address it scientifically after an adjournment.

I don't like to say it's a "completed" inquest because obviously, they close so abruptly when it looks like they were going to adjourn. Was it legal? I think it was. Were the grounds for quashing it? I don't think so--Macdonald doesn't inhibit the jurors--but people who would like to determine that for themselves should read examples of inquests that went up to the High Court. I've posted two examples that I think are pretty good (my last post). They were covered extensively in The Times.

Hi Simon,

With Kelly, Phillips is very likely to have pulled what he did with Baxter. I think it's reasonable to make a case that Macdonald may have been more sympathetic to his point of view--I don't think so, I think Macdonald means to put that evidence in--but others do. This "secret" meeting between Macdonald and Phillips I feel was likely Macdonald taking his view of the body with Phillips present. It's very reasonable to suppose that Phillips made his position about giving evidence known--maybe Macdonald sympathized--but the problem there is that Macdonald can't give a guarantee that they'll have a short inquest. Macdonald can't account for a jury's discretion beforehand.

I take this to mean that there's a claim that the Home Office is instructing Phillips not to testify? Phillips was a witness in a coroner's court. He's there to testify--he's performed the postmortem to testify. He may not like it, but that's his function. And he will have to do it, according to the discretion of the coroner and jury. If they trod all over the jury, that's grounds for getting the inquest quashed.

I think the criticism of the loss of evidence is solid and reasonable. However, I ask if there is a danger that the Kelly inquest could have adjourned. If you have an interest, see my next post.

[Dave O]

Hi Phil:

Seemingly so, yet, my reading of this condradicts that intension, as he clearly advises the jury to end it on the first day. Right, this is why I say something apparently has happened during the proceedings to make Macdonald alter his position about adjourning. I point to the composition of Macdonald's district having an impact on jurors.

Beware, I am going to geek out, but this is my thinking about that inquest. I am trying to be as brief as possible--but of course, those of you who wish may skip over this:

1) When the North East district is created in May 1888, it doesn't align with how the Metropolitan Board of Works was organized--Colin Roberts puts this better than I can, but basically the Board of Works was responsible for the construction of mortuaries and the burials of impoverished people.

Spitalfields, where the crime happened but was then also a place that apparently had no mortuary, is part of the Whitechapel district of the Board of Works; Shoreditch (or Bethnal Green), where the body was removed to, wasn't. Yet Spitalfields, Shoreditch, and Bethnal Green are all parts of Macdonald's district.

As I understand it, administratively speaking, Spitalfields was then part of the Whitechapel. There were people in Shoreditch who regarded Spitalfields as part of Whitechapel: two different parishes, but both are part of the same district as far as the Board of Works go, right? But not when it came to coroner's inquests.

So, this problem manifests itself at the Kelly inquest, a sensational, high profile case. You get:

The jury having answered to their names, one of them said: I do not see why we should have the inquest thrown upon our shoulders, when the murder did not happen in our district, but in Whitechapel.

And: We are summoned for the Shoreditch district. This affair happened in Spitalfields. OK, this guy lives in Shoreditch, outside the Whitechapel Board of Works--at the same time, he also lives in the North East coroner's district.

And, from a second juror:

This is not my district. I come from Whitechapel, and Mr. Baxter is my coroner. This person must live within the Whitechapel District of the Board of Works--as far as he's concerned, he is from Whitechapel. Yet he must also live within the North East coroner's district.

So, this is what I mean when I say that the composition of Macdonald's district is totally screwed up. This problem will be remedied when a vacancy occurs in the North East in 1894 (Macdonald dies). Spitalfields and other areas were returned to the districts of Wynne Baxter and George Danford Thomas--precisely to align with how the rest of London was organized.

But in November 1888, it's a problem.

2) Now, Macdonald has only summoned 14 jurors. Two of them are incorrectly complaining of the jurisdiction. You see Macdonald coming down hard on them. Now this isn't just vanity---2 jurors are questioning their own right to assess evidence. This is a challenge to the integrity of the proceedings. Now, 12 jurors are required to return a verdict. What if these jurors should prove troublesome at the end of the proceedings and return to refuse a verdict? Well, they would still have 12, assuming no one else on the jury catches what these two jurors have got.

Macdonald doesn't address the problem with his district, but he does explain his (and the jury's) jurisdiction:

I am not going to discuss the subject with jurymen at all. If any juryman says he distinctly objects, let him say so. (After a pause): I may tell the jurymen that jurisdiction lies where the body lies, not where it was found, if there was doubt as to the district where the body was found.

And he's right. Jurisdiction was then tied to the body, and Mary Kelly never leaves the North East district--unlike Annie Chapman, whose body is taken into Whitechapel (it leaves Macdonald's district for Wynne Baxter's South East district.)

Jurisdiction explained, I think Macdonald must have felt he had dealt with the problem. They move through the evidence--some press reports indicate that he does so briskly and business like. Macdonald indicates an adjournment is coming to hear the medical evidence:

The jury had no questions to ask at this stage, and it was understood that more detailed evidence of the medical examination would be given at a future hearing.

3) Following Dr. Phillips' appearance, there's a break (I think this is for lunch--I have read that Macdonald only allows 15 minutes for lunch). When they return, you get this:

An adjournment for a few minutes then took place, and on the return of the jury the coroner said: It has come to my ears that somebody has been making a statement to some of the jury as to their right and duty of being here. Has any one during the interval spoken to the jury, saying that they should not be here to-day ?

Some jurymen replied in the negative.

The Coroner: Then I must have been misinformed. I should have taken good care that he would have had a quiet life for the rest of the week if anybody had interfered with my jury.

The Irish Times 13 November 1888 gives a little more information, my emphasis:

The Coroner's officer reported to the Coroner that an official of the Shoreditch Vestry had been persuading the jury that they ought not to have been summoned to this inquest at all.

Now, we don't really know if this attempted interference took place--it's denied that it did, but you see Macdonald throw out that warning. In any case, given that this inquest started with 2 jurors questioning their own jurisdiction, I think this is something he, and the police as interested parties (who probably don't want to see an adjournment anyway), have to take into account. Now Macdonald must surely see that there may be a danger in adjourning. What if jurors don't return? What if they lose the two complainers--they still have 12, enough to reach a verdict. What if they lose a third? Macdonald is talking about adjourning for a week or two weeks. The inquest fails, and the whole business has to start over from scratch, including the view of the body. Absent jurors may be fined--but it will not save the inquest if you don't have 12 to return a verdict. These are things a coroner would have to consider, with input from interested parties.

Macdonald advises the jury against adjournment. The jury acquiesces.

Macdonald is dealing with jury issues that are caused by the composition of his district--this is not in his control. What is in his control: Wynne Baxter and Samuel Langham don't have these problems, but if they did, the number of jurymen they summon in two other high profile, sensational cases (17 jurors with Eddowes, 23 jurors with Stride) would likely be enough to overcome the problem and allow their inquests to adjourn safely enough.

Macdonald doesn't do that--he's only got the 14 for a high profile case. In a badly drawn district. With two complaining jurors. With possible interference by an alleged official from the Shoreditch Vestry. That this would be someone from the Vestry makes complete sense to me, but who knows?

This is why I ask, "can this inquest safely adjourn?" People have different opinions and thoughts that are valid, but I do think this should be given some weight when assessing the Kelly inquest.

Cheers,
Dave

[Dave O]

Fair is fair

Hi Stewart,

You wrote: The Coroners' Act 1887 was a consolidation Act designed to draw together the fragmented case law, rules, common law and legislation that had emerged, over the years, affecting inquests. In 1888 it was in its very early days and amendments were already suggested and tabled.
Yes, that Act and commentary on it are major sources that I've used for procedure; your description of it is spot on. In it the basic functions of inquest were described in law for the first time in centuries. I also think of it as a platform for review and future reform of inquest law because the old laws are just scattered all over the place, some of them ancient. It's a significant landmark. I've always liked it precisely because it was consolidation, and parts of it reflect Victorian procedure from before 1887.

However, you seem to be giving a caution, and only last week I came across something that would seem to support a need for one. I noticed the following in Lloyd's Weekly, Sept 30 1888. I would like to bring the law that's cited in it to your attention, my emphasis:

There is great indignation at the East-end over the shabby treatment of witnesses. On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:


N.B. - Bring this summons with you. All fees and expenses are required by the Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1, to be advanced and paid by the coroner immediately after the termination of the inquest to such witnesses as the coroner may think fit to allow.



That law is from the first year of Victoria's reign, and was one of those that was consolidated into the 1887 Act and repealed. Just to explain my dilemma to people who might read this, the Coroner's Act 1887 would have gone into force with the Queen's Assent, which offhand I think was September 16 1887 (that it went into force then, I have from the Parliamentary Archives--there are no dates for commencement in the text). Yet here is this law, which should no longer be in force, still cited in a summons from Sept. 1888. It's not that procedure changed over 50 years--the coroner still had to settle up at the end of the inquest. It's the citation that gives me pause. I don't really have a good explanation for it, and it bugs me. It's an inconsistency.



So, if you were giving a caution on applying legislation, I want you to know that I take your point--to be careful. It's only fair to point that out.


Thanks,
Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Well if it was missing from the room then there would be no need to back to the room to look for it would there ?

[Stewart P Evans]

A Few Hours

Well if it was missing from the room then there would be no need to back to the room to look for it would there ?

Give me a few hours to think about that one Trevor...

[Phil Carter]

Intruiging

There can be no doubt that Macdonald adopted the course that the police wished for. However, the abbreviated inquest caused comment and criticism of the action taken; and was most unusual. That alone was enough to give rise to public suspicion.

Hello Stewart, Norma, Dave, Trevor, Archaic, all,

Having left this thread a while, and having re-read the threads, something intruiging occured to me.

The closing of the inquest in abnormally short time and manner, without Phillips' detailed evidence from the post mortem, combined with the fact that the post mortem papers written by Phillips are missing.

This, I suggest, might not just be co-incidence. If the police were directing the Coroner, as has been suggested, to end the inquest abruptly without Phillips giving full details of the Post Mortem, and the inquest papers are missing from the files, it would indicate, quite reasonably in the above circumstances, that somebody didn't want the post mortem results made available at all. Knowing that papers went missing at an early stage, knwing that papers were in the posession of senior policemen at the time and/or shortly afterwards, I suggest that this points towards someone within the police force having taken the inquest papers.

Something was not meant to be known.

And could it be connected to the very swift reaction of offering a reward, with a Royal pardon for anybody knowing or helping the murderer? That may be speculatory I know, but the first connection above leads my mind in that direction. Especially as it was the police themselves that indicated through their direction of the Coroner to curtail the inquest without details?

best wishes

Phil

[Debra A]

Again, with great help from Debs, who has valiantly tried to trace a copy of Hebbert's handwriting from the 1911 census, all in vain...

Better late than never.
Here's Charles Alfred Hebbert's signature, taken from his marriage record on 23 Apr 1919 in Ontario Canada.

[lynn cates]

well done

Hello Debs. Bravo!

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

As an aside, there's a bit of info on Hebbert here, if it's useful to anyone :

http://www.anatpro.com/index_files/f1.htm

[Phil Carter]

Better late than never.
Here's Charles Alfred Hebbert's signature, taken from his marriage record on 23 Apr 1919 in Ontario Canada.

[ATTACH]12017[/ATTACH]

Hello Debs,

Well done indeed. A very useful find.

best wishes

Phil

[Debra A]

As an aside, there's a bit of info on Hebbert here, if it's useful to anyone :

http://www.anatpro.com/index_files/f1.htm

Thanks Lynn and Phil. Hope it proves useful.

Robert, thanks for that link. This Canadian marriage isn't included in the family records you linked to,just his marriage to Helen Dilke, so I thought I should post some of the other certificate details, just to show it is the same Charles Alfred Hebbert:

Charles Alfred Hebbert, widower.
Occupation Physician.
Born-England
Father- John Benbow Hebbert
mother- Lucy Aston (her maiden name)

[Robert]

Hi Debs

To judge from the Medical Register, he left between 1895 and 1899, first for America and then on to Canada.

There is a Dr Charles Alfred Hebbert leaving London for Australia in 1922, which is probably him, though his age is given as 62.

[Phil Carter]

Comparison

Hello Debs, all,

In an effort to lay each of the previously posted images side by side as it were, for comparison. I present them both herewith, with thanks to Stewart and Debs for providing them for our perusal.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I've always felt you need to be a trained pharmacist in order to understand a doctor's handwriting, but in the light of this very interesting thread I thought it might help clarify [or further confuse] matters by posting the final page from Dr. Bond's profile of the Whitechapel murders.

Whose handwriting is this?

On the signature line, the use of "(signed)", [a variant on per procurationem—"by the agent of"—and usually shortened to per pro or pp], suggests that someone other than Bond penned this document and also signed it on his behalf. Possibly a secretary, clerk or amnuensis.

Anyway, here it is—



Sorry for the dodgy quality. Photographing microfiche can be a bit of a hit and miss affair

Regards,

Simon

[Rob Clack]

Hi Simon,

I can't help with who wrote that copy but (and you might already know this) in the files there is the original and two copies.

The original is in MEPO 3/140


And the two copies are in HO 144/221/A49301C




Rob