Double throat cuts

[David Orsam]

Spitalfields was in Coroner Baxter's district, wasn't it? The body only came under McDonald's jurisdiction once it was moved to Shoreditch mortuary.

That's a very good point.

[David Orsam]

This is what you wrote on post 226.

"What I deduce is that it would be rather odd for Bond to carry out one post-mortem examination and for Phillips to then replicate his work with a second (identical?) post-mortem examination."

Which suggests two separate P.M.'s in sequence.
You then continue to mention a third, on Saturday morning.

"But if that did happen, why did Bond attend at Phillips's post-mortem examination in the mortuary? Having done what was asked of him on Friday, why did he not scoot back off to Westminster to write his report that same evening?"

If that is not what you meant, then surely you can see why I read it that way.

No, not really. I thought that what I was saying, in the context of my argument, was crystal clear but I'll add the days into it if it helps.

"What I deduce is that it would be rather odd for Bond to carry out one post-mortem examination on the Friday and for Phillips to then replicate his work with a second (identical?) post-mortem examination on the Saturday."

"But if that did happen, why did Bond attend at Phillips's post-mortem examination in the mortuary on the Saturday? Having done what was asked of him on Friday, why did he not scoot back off to Westminster to write his report that same evening?"

[Wickerman]

I disagree. The fact is that he doesn't describe ANY form of examination. All he does is tell the coroner and the jury what the immediate cause of death was - something he concluded from his examination (which he does not describe in any way other than to use the word "subsequent").

Phillips gave more than a conclusion, he gave the reasons why. Which involved some investigation. He cannot see the extent of blood beneath the bed without having the bed moved. So, he is not simply giving a conclusion. He has examined the scene.

[David Orsam]

Phillips gave more than a conclusion, he gave the reasons why. Which involved some investigation. He cannot see the extent of blood beneath the bed without having the bed moved. So, he is not simply giving a conclusion. He has examined the scene.

Sure but he doesn't actually say he moved the bed so he was describing nothing.

And even if he had described that part of the examination in which he formed an opinion about the cause of death, that wouldn't necessarily mean he had described the ENTIRE examination, would it?

[Wickerman]

Spitalfields was in Coroner Baxter's district, wasn't it? The body only came under McDonald's jurisdiction once it was moved to Shoreditch mortuary.

I don't think we know the whole story here Joshua. If Mcdonald did not have jurisdiction then how was it that the coroner's officer was able to remove the body to Shoreditch?

From what I understand the doctor assigned to examine a body can only do so with the express permission of the local Coroner who has jurisdiction over the body.

Did Phillips apply to Coroner Baxter for permission to examine the body on the spot, only to have the body kidnapped by Coroner Macdonald?

Or, were the examinations conducted on Friday done without any permission?

On the discovery of a body the local police already know which doctor to bring to the scene, they know the name of the medical man who is generally assigned by the local Coroner, to come and pronounce life extinct.

The police, in this case brought doctor Phillips.
What we do not know is why. But as Dr. Phillips worked under Coroner Baxter then, the body is said to have lay in Baxter's jurisdiction, so this would be correct.
The question then becomes, how did the body go to Shoreditch, to Macdonald's jurisdiction?

- Did the police send it to the wrong location?
- Did Macdonald's officer come and get it (as reported in the press).
- Did Phillips send it to the wrong location?

Many have looked into the jurisdiction issues, but I don't recall anyone looking into how the body came to go to Mcdonald, when it lay in Baxter's jurisdiction.
Solving that question might help answer where Phillips obtained permission to examine the body.

I might be mis-remembering here but I though it had been suggested that Spitalfields (Dorset street) was actually in Macdonalds jurisdiction?

[Wickerman]

I might be mis-remembering here but I though it had been suggested that Spitalfields (Dorset street) was actually in Macdonalds jurisdiction?

Maybe this is what I was remembering:

The removal of Kelly's body to the Shoreditch mortuary is likely to lead to some complications through the intersection of the local boundaries and the jurisdiction of the two coroners for the newly-formed divisions of Eastern Middlesex. Spitalfields, although within the Whitechapel district for all local purposes, is within the North Eastern Division of Middlesex, and is therefore under the jurisdiction of Dr. Macdonald. All the other portions of Whitechapel remain under the jurisdiction of Mr. Baxter, so far as coroner's inquests are concerned.
Star, 10 Nov. 1888.

[David Orsam]

From Evening Post of 12 November 1888:

“Crowner’s quest law” about which the EVENING POST had a great deal to say some months ago, is responsible for a decidedly unsavoury squabble over the corpse of the unfortunate woman murdered in Dorset-street on Lord Mayor’s Day. At first sight it seemed very curious that whereas in the Hanbury-street case the body was removed to Old Montague-street, and the inquest held by Wynne Baxter, in this case, where the murder was committed nearer to Whitechapel than Hanbury-street, the body was taken to Shoreditch, and the inquest held by Dr. Macdonald. The explanation is that there is a sort of flotsam and jetsam distinction between the two cases. A dead body found in the open air has to be removed by the police; one found in a building has to be taken charge of by the coroner’s officers. In the Hanbury-street case the police took their grim burden to the nearest mortuary – Old Montague-street – thus bringing it within the jurisdiction of Mr. Baxter, though the murder was committed in Mr. Macdonald’s district. When the coroner’s officer came into play he could not take the body to the same place, or he would have lost his hold upon it, so he took it to Shoreditch and kept it in Mr. Macdonald’s district. This would not have mattered much. On the turn-about principle Mr. Baxter was quite willing that such should be the case. But now comes the vital question, “Who is to pay the piper.” If this woman has to have a pauper’s burial – as seems very likely – the relieving officers will have to object to the ratepayers of Shoreditch paying for the burial of a woman murdered in another district. The only way out of the difficulty will be, it is said, to remove the body back to Whitechapel, have a second inquest, and so palm the cost on the Whitechapel people. It is certainly a very unpleasant state of affairs.

[Joshua Rogan]

Fair enough Jon, that Star article might explain it. The Telegraph inquest report has McDonald saying that "it happened within my district" which seems petty conclusive. But later he seems (possibly) to imply that the body might have been taken to Shoreditch because it was physically the closest mortuary;

"Coroner (addressing the reporters) said a great fuss had been made in some papers about the jurisdiction of the coroner, and who should hold the inquest. He had not had any communication with Dr. Baxter upon the subject. The body was in his jurisdiction; it had been taken to his mortuary; and there was an end of it. There was no foundation for the reports that had appeared. In a previous case of murder which occurred in his district the body was carried to the nearest mortuary, which was in another district. The inquest was held by Mr. Baxter, and he made no objection. The jurisdiction was where the body lay."

[David Orsam]

I get the impression that McDonald conceded that the murder had not been his district:

"The Juryman: The murder occurred in the Whitechapel district. I am on the list for Shoreditch, and I do not see why I should be summoned about the matter.

The Coroner (impatiently): I shall not argue with the jury. If any juryman has any distinct objection let him say so.

Two other jurymen objected.

The Coroner: I may tell you that jurisdiction lies where the body lies, and not where the murder was committed; and the body lies in Shoreditch.

The Coroner’s officer than asked the jury to select a foreman, but several who were selected refused to fill the post, and some difficulty was experienced until a foreman could be sworn.

Ultimately, after some loss of time, the objection of the jurors was withdrawn and the usual preliminaries gone through. At the suggestion of the Coroner it was decided that the jurymen had better the view the locality where the murder was committed, as well as the body.

On the return of the jury.

The Coroner said the papers had been making a great fuss as to the jurisdiction and who should hold the inquest. As a matter of fact, there had not been any difficulty at all. He had had no communication at all with Mr. Baxter. The body was in his jurisdiction, it was moved to his mortuary, and there was an end of it. One of the previous murders was committed in his district, but the police moved the body to the Whitechapel mortuary, and therefore the inquest was held by Mr. Baxter. The question of jurisdiction was decided by the place in which the jury was lying, irrespective of where the murder was committed."

Evening Post, 12 November 1888

[Wickerman]

The thing is, Jon, Bond's report was required ASAP.

As you are no doubt aware, there is a note of telephone message in the Home Office files of the police response to a request for that report as follows:

'Body is believed to be that of a prostitute much mutilated. Dr Bond is at present engaged in making his Examination - but his report has not yet been received. Full report cannot be furnished until medical officers have completed enquiry.'

Note 'medical officers' plural. And Bond did not furnish his report on 9 November. It wasn't written until the next day. That suggests to me, not that he had a mere professional interest in the Saturday morning post-mortem examination, but that he could not submit his report until it was completed. What does it suggest to you?

Is the date of that message 9th Nov. ?

[David Orsam]

Is the date of that message 9th Nov. ?

Yes, it's very faint but written across the top of the message in some sort of light pencil is:

"Telephone message from police 9.11.88"

[Wickerman]

How does that suggest any such thing?

How do we know the entire section under "Postmortem Examination" wasn't written in the afternoon on Saturday?

And the same for his entire report of 10 November.

I don't think we have a question over his report to Anderson A49301C/21, dated 10 Nov.
But the other 7 pages of his examination which are undated, yet the first three pages certainly begin with his arrival at Millers Court, so if not written on the 9th the observations clearly indicate the 9th.

The issue is you are trying to separate 4 of those 7 as containing observations recorded on the 10th.
It isn't so much a question of me being sure, the date of the content is clearly indicated by the first three pages.
You are trying to separate those 7 pages, but according to what evidence?
Just by raising a question?

[David Orsam]

It isn't so much a question of me being sure, the date of the content is clearly indicated by the first three pages.

But if you were to look at the first few pages of Dr Phillips' report of 22 July 1889, it would show you an examination being conducted at 1.10am in Castle Alley on 17 July.

But then on another page is a report of a preliminary examination of the body at the mortuary followed by a report of the post-mortem made at 2pm.

So what might otherwise appear to be a single examination is actually three separate ones at different times.

So what you see on the first three pages of Dr Bond's report doesn't necessarily refer to the same examination on the following four pages does it?

[Wickerman]

Yes, it's very faint but written across the top of the message in some sort of light pencil is:

"Telephone message from police 9.11.88"

I thought so because the police knew very well who & what the victim was by the 10th.

So, the message was answered while Dr. Bond was conducting his examination, between 2:00 and 4:00 pm on Friday.
Clearly then he could not create a report, but what is this "full report", and why do police use "examination" and "inquiry", as if they are referring to two different procedures?
The inquiry meaning the P.M. for Saturday morning?

Are they referring to the 'full report' written after the Coroners P.M. which we have as the A49301C/21, which must have been written Saturday afternoon or later?

Doesn't this message fall in line with what I am suggesting?

[David Orsam]

You are trying to separate those 7 pages, but according to what evidence?
Just by raising a question?

Well, I wonder, did Dr Bond really examine the abdominal cavity and the stomach attached to the intestines while in Mary Kelly's room. It seems like something a medical examiner would only do in a mortuary doesn't it?