Visit to Millers Court by Phillips and McDonald

[Chris Scott]

The section below refers to an incident I don't remember seeing before. This claims that Dr Phillips and McDonald, the coroner, visited Millers Court on 10 November and examined the "refuse" in detail. The preceding section suggests that this "refuse" means the ashes from the fire, but this is not entirely clear.
Chris

Lloyds Weekly
11 November 1888

A very singular investigation was in progress yesterday with respect to something missing. It was thought the murderer had burnt the thing in question before leaving the scene of the crime. Accordingly the ashes and other matter in the fireplace of the room in Millers Court were carefully taken up, sifted, and examined. Dr Philiips and Dr McDonald, M.P., the coroner for the district, visited the house and subjected the refuse to the closest scrutiny. It is understood, however, that nothing was discovered, leaving it to be assumed, therefore, that the murderer took away a part of his victim's body, though what portion is for the present a secret known only to the doctors.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Chris

Possibly they were trying to find evidence that the heart had been burnt in the fire and not carried away by the murderer.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Stephen
That is how I read it
I had not seen any reference to McDonald visiting Millers Court before the inquest. Of course it should not be a surprise that he did but i had not seen mention of it before.
The "something missing" referred to could be just a straightforward way of saying that the writer, as he says at the end, had no idea which bodily part was under investigation, as only the doctors knew ans they were saying nothing
However it is also possible that it was assumed, in the light of the Chapman and Eddowes killings, that the organ in question was the uterus which in many press accounts is only hinted at or mentioned euphemistically.
If there is any credibility in this account, and if we are reading it right, it would suggest the following sequence of events:
Abberline, as he reported, carefully sifted and examined the contents of the fireplace. Presumably this was on 9th
In the light of the post mortem it was established that a bodily part was missing, i.e. the heart
On the following day, the 10th, Phillips and McDonald go to Millers Court to re-examine the contents of the fireplace in the light of the postmortem findings

Chris

[Mike Covell]

I get the feeling that the ashes were searched, but after finding the heart missing were searched again. It is easier to find something if you know what your looking for.

[claire]

Blimey, Mike, what do you think might have been missed on the first sift? An intact aorta or vena cava? The whole organ? Do you reckon Abberline thought he might have just come across some tubing?! Sorry, it was just the way you phrased it (I had an image of, 'was there a heart, Abberline?' 'I don't know, but then again, I wasn't looking for one.' 'Ah, then, lets go back and see if it's there after all.' Tee hee. ) I think they knew that most organs would not survive a harsh fire. But if the rumour had gone out that MJK was pregnant, then a missing uterus would be a whole different thing.

[Dan Norder]

Aha... I had speculated that they sifted the ashes looking for the heart based upon earlier reports, but this story seems to all but confirm it.

This is especially interesting when coupled with the Sept. 12th, 1888, report in the Star that a man with his "imagination fired by Hanbury-street" threatened to cut out his wife's heart and burn it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Other reports like this had been discussed before (though perhaps not mentioning McDonald). Didn't Stewart Evans publish a contemporary drawing of the doctors searching the fireplace?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Dan Norder]

Hi Tom,

We had plenty of reports that they searched the fireplace, but we never knew for sure what they were looking for. Some people thought it had something to do with clothing. This article points more toward a missing body part, which probably means the heart (even if the reporter wasn't sure which part it was) since that's the only one that was listed as absent.

[alex]

Hi All

This is how the Daily Telegraph, 12th Nov. 1888 reported this search:

“A somewhat important investigation was made on Saturday in the room in Miller’s-court in which the crime was perpetrated. There was reason to believe that the murderer had burnt something before leaving the place after the deed, and accordingly the ashes and other matter in the grate were carefully preserved. On Saturday afternoon Dr. Phillips and Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the district, visited Miller’s-court, and after the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen. Nothing, however, was found which is likely to afford any assistance or clue to the police. The doctors were engaged some hours at the Mortuary, Shoreditch-churchyard, in making a post-mortem examination. Every portion of the body was fully accounted for, and at the conclusion of the investigation the various portions were sewn together and placed in a coffin. … A most minute search has been conducted by the police and medical gentlemen in the room where the crime was perpetrated, but practically nothing in the nature of a clue has been obtained. The man’s coat discovered there belonged to Mrs. Harvey, who had lived with the woman Kelly; whilst the ashes, which have been carefully sifted, reveal no traces of burnt human flesh.”


Best wishes
alex chisholm

[Bailey]

So, according the article Alex has posted (and I'm sure I've seen other references to same, tho I may be remembering the same article quoted elsewhere), all parts of Ms Kelly are accounted for and she is fully reassembled. How do we view this in relation to Dr Bond's notes of the removal of the heart - was it taken away from Miller's Court entirely, or simply removed from the body and found elsewhere in the room? Surely considering how thorough Bond's notes are he'd have mentioned finding it?

B.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Interesting, very interesting...

I couldn't help wondering, if being so secretive with the heart caused to the rumours about pregnancy...

All the best
Jukka

[Dan Norder]

Surely considering how thorough Bond's notes are he'd have mentioned finding it?

Absolutely. And if they had found it they wouldn't be looking in the fireplace for it later.

Press accounts are pretty unreliable, not only because they can get facts wrong (or invent them up if it suited them) but because they simply weren't in a position to know. Whatever Bond said has to be considered far more reliable than what the papers had to say.

[aspallek]

The human body is very resilient. It would be very difficult to destroy completely a human heart by burning it in a fireplace, even with a very hot fire. I have no doubt they were looking for remnants of the missing organ.

[Dave O]

Hi Chris and Alex,

You might be interested to know that Wynne Baxter also visited Miller's Court the same day as Macdonald, in preparation for his own inquest on Mary Kelly. Baxter anticipated that the authorities in Shoreditch would send Mary Kelly's body into Whitechapel in order to throw the burden of burial onto the ratepayers there. It's part of that weird jurisdictional anomaly between the Northeast and Southeast Middlesex coroners' districts that existed 1888-1894, where the districts did not line up with the sanitary districts (Spitalfields and Shoreditch in Macdonald's coroner's district, Whitechapel in Baxter's districs, but at the same time Spitalfields was also part of Whitechapel Sanitary District, Shoreditch the Shoreditch Sanitary District, I think). There would be times bodies would be cross the districts--Annie Chapman is another example, leaving Macdonald's district for Baxter's (but in her case no problem with the burial costs).

A double inquest for Mary Kelly was averted when Henry Wilton paid for Kelly's burial instead. A similar event happened in March 1889, Louisa Ellesden, when her body actually was sent into Whitechapel, and Baxter felt compelled to hold a second inquest following one by Macdonald--that was evidently based upon his (Baxter's) interpretation of The Coroner's Act 1887. Both Samuel Montagu and the Home Secretary criticized Baxter for his decision in the House of Commons and when Macdonald died in 1894, the London County Council seized the opportunity to put Spitalfields back into Baxter's districts so the sanitary districts would align with the coroner's district and they wouldn't get these bodies hopping boundaries and potential double inquests.

I had a thread about it under the Roderick Macdonald section, The (Nearly) Double Inquest for Mary Kelly, but it got lost in the crash.

[Mitch Rowe]

Could it be possible Phillips was with holding the information about the heart?
If Bonds PM is not fake then they didnt find the heart. But why would anyone trying to fake a report say the heart was absent when it was understood since the Crime itself that no parts were missing?

If that heart was found Phillips would have put it where it belonged Im sure of it. They didnt send it for any test. No reason. She was Murdered in the first place. It didnt roll on the floor and was forgotten.

There seems to be no reason why the heart was absent!

My only conclusion then is:

Phillips with held that information!