Duration of the inquest into the death of Mary Jane Kelly (?)

[Hunter]

Where Macdonald did fail, in my opinion is, with Scotland Yard. Their investigation requires them to have the time of death established. Collecting evidence in pursuing the Hutchinson suspect is pointless if Kelly died about 1:30 am., before he appeared on the scene.
Likewise, pursuing the Blotchy suspect is questionable if Kelly was murdered roughly four hours after Blotchy arrived.

Hi Jon,

That would have more to do with the police investigation and not the coroner's inquest, which mainly was to establish cause if death and the identity of the victim. Like many government entities, there were some gray areas. All through the 19th century there was an ongoing battle between the police/ magistrate and the longer established coroner over jurisdictional procedure. Even though both were coroners, Macdonald represented the former and Baxter the latter.

If Macdonald made any mistakes, one was the composition of the jury. There was much confusion over the district itself when East Middlesex was split, and the fact that he only had 3 over minimum meant if he lost some and couldn't maintain 12 ( especially if there was and adjournment) his inquest would be nullified. He was trying to be more frugal expense wise than Baxter, who would commonly summon 18 to 24 jurors.

The other would be the victim's identity where Macdonald did not wait until a family member came forward to firmly establish identity beyond acquaintances. Langham had waited several days to start his Eddowes inquest so the victim could be properly identified and Baxter until his third session with Stride's -- even though she was mistakenly identified by a bogus relative early on.

As I wrote on this same subject on the other site -- different styles of coroners. Macdonald, beyond his minimal legal requirements, was going to leave it to the police and magistrates Court should someone eventually be charged.

The only thing this is frustrating for is Ripperologists, who rely more on inquest than the sparse internal police files.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

well, he did had that "reputation", according to Wise.

[Wickerman]

To diagnose a behavioural condition would require a broad analysis of Macdonald's inquests. An isolated case here and there may not give a true impression.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hello Jon, I was merely pointing out that the hastiness of the inquest also had behaviour aspect from the coroner himself.

[Wickerman]

I found this interesting paragraph, in Sara Wise "the Blackest Streets", describing the living conditions of Old Nichols.

Page 296:

".... the newspapers of the day noted that is refusal to field any questions from a confused jury at the Kelly inquest was very strange and unhelpful behaviour."

Hi SirJohn.

In collating the numerous versions of press coverage of the Kelly inquest we do see only Bowyer, Cox, and Maxwell being questioned by a Juror, whether by design or not is hard to say. Certainly Macdonald fielded the bulk of the questions.

Where Macdonald did fail, in my opinion is, with Scotland Yard. Their investigation requires them to have the time of death established. Collecting evidence in pursuing the Hutchinson suspect is pointless if Kelly died about 1:30 am., before he appeared on the scene.
Likewise, pursuing the Blotchy suspect is questionable if Kelly was murdered roughly four hours after Blotchy arrived.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

About the duration of the inquest

I found this interesting paragraph, in Sara Wise "the Blackest Streets", describing the living conditions of Old Nichols.

Page 296:

"Roderick Macdonald was, from June 1888, coroner for the north-east Middlesex and was gaining a reputation for hastiness in closing inquests, and for brusqueness and high-handedness with coroners' juries and witnesses. On 12 November 1888, Macdonald brought the inquiry into the death of final Ripper victim Mary Kell to an indecently swift end, the newspapers of the day noted that is refusal to field any questions from a confused jury at the Kelly inquest was very strange and unhelpful behaviour."

She talks about it regarding the fact that a man with multiple fractures, who died in his bed three days after being assaulted by a gang, was ruled an accident by Macdonald, who even refused to see dozens of eye witnesses of the assault.

[claire]

Thanks for the background, Mike and Frank. Office politics. Little has changed

[Lechmere]

FrankO
The reason I worked back was that I wanted to find the latest likely time of Lewis’s testimony as it had some bearing on a discussion about when and how her testimony or her presence at the inquest may have become public knowledge.
I think there are sound reasons for thinking the inquest will have run on until 5ish – which I gave.
I would estimate that the proceedings that followed Lewis’s testimony would have taken a good hour and a half. Any earlier conclusion of the inquest would have pushed Lewis’s timings back. As I say, the angle I was looking at was Lewis’s testimony and I was trying to be as ‘generous’ as possible in ascribing as late as possible a time for it.

[FrankO]

Mike,

Yes, I can certainly see that political or other issues between the two may also have been a factor, and that this was Macdonald's way of criticising Baxter in a veiled way for his nerve-wreckingly long inquests and show him how it was done.

Cheers,
Frank

[The Good Michael]

Frank,

Thanks for that post re: McDonald's statement. It seems to me that a logical reason was given, but that the underlying reason may be the animosity between he and Baxter and a way to show that Baxter wasn't needed and I can take care of this myself, thank you very much, but just in case I can't I'm closing the show early. Nothing sinister here though and brevity does make sense going by his explanation.

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you for that Frank.

Good afternoon Lynn,

My suggestion is to compare MJK's inquest to some of the other victims--in particular, Polly and Annie's. Notice the HUGE difference?

Yes, the different coroner operating the inquest proceedings. And this one was shorter. What's wrong with that? Nothing. Read what the Evening News opined (above) about the true purpose of an inquest. And what the Coroner himself said.

I recall that, as a younger professor, I had stopped a lecture just a few minutes short? Why? It occurred to me that there was a difficult question lurking which I may not be able to answer fully if asked. Now extrapolate.

Certainly Lynn, I extrapolate that as you became better at your profession, those pesky questions wouldn't stop you from finishing your assigned class. Just like if I go to a doctor, I don't want him to extrapolate, I want him to diagnose and treat. Likewise if I take my taxes to an accountant, I don't want him to extrapolate, I want him to present me with a completed tax form I can sign.

The story of the inquest has been told repeatedly in books, articles, discussions and this excellent thread courtesy of Frank. But if you and Simon Wood are finally ready to tell us the real reason why it was shortened, please by all means do so. Otherwise, your extrapolation to nowhere is like going to the circus, and the elephant, resplendent in his sash, balances on one foot on a stool. And he stays there. And he stays there. And he never steps off. I wouldn't like that. Eventually I would move down the midway to find the next act.

Roy

[FrankO]

The brevity of the inquest has long troubled me...if I can borrow Lynn's analogy of the lurking and difficult question, what I have always wondered is: what could that question (issue/topic) be that could motivate such a dash through an inquest?

Hi Claire,

In addition to what Mike wrote, this is what The Evening News of 13 November reported on the subject - and that sounds quite plausible to me as well:

"Dr. McDonald, the coroner who yesterday conducted the inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of the unfortunate woman Mary Jeanette Kelly, set an example which other coroners would, in a general way, do well to follow. He laid down the sound proposition that the duty of a coroner's jury was to find out the cause of death, and return a verdict accordingly. They have nothing to do with the prosecution of criminals; and when they stray into that region they are merely essaying to do work which can be much better done by other agencies to which it more properly belongs. Long drawn out inquests, such as we have too often had to suffer of late, are in every way a mistake. They are wastefully expensive, they cause a quite unnecessary amount of trouble, and put witnesses and others to inconvenience which is at once uncalled for and unjustifiable. Once the jury is satisfied as to the cause of death, whether it was murder, suicide, accident, or what not, its duty is at an end and, if there is any suspicion or a certainty of criminality involved in the matter, the affair then becomes one for the police. In the case of the Whitechapel murders, one is so much like another that these considerations tell with redoubled force. No coroner's jury is at all likely to throw any fresh light upon the modus operandi of the monster who has selected the East end as his sphere of action, and therefore it is sheer waste of time for a coroner to go on travelling over and over again what is practically old ground."

And that corresponds with what coroner Macdonald said according to the Daily Telegraph of 13 November, just before he closed the inquest:

"The Coroner (to the jury): The question is whether you will adjourn for further evidence. My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases, and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expense and trouble. If the coroner's jury can come to a decision as to the cause of death, then that is all that they have to do. They have nothing to do with prosecuting a man and saying what amount of penalty he is to get. It is quite sufficient if they find out what the cause of death was. It is for the police authorities to deal with the case and satisfy themselves as to any person who may be suspected later on. I do not want to take it out of your hands. It is for you to say whether at an adjournment you will hear minutiae of the evidence, or whether you will think it is a matter to be dealt with in the police-courts later on, and that, this woman having met with her death by the carotid artery having been cut, you will be satisfied to return a verdict to that effect. From what I learn the police are content to take the future conduct of the case. It is for you to say whether you will close the inquiry to-day; if not, we shall adjourn for a week or fortnight, to hear the evidence that you may desire."

All the best,
Frank

[The Good Michael]

Claire,

The details escape me at the moment, but there were political issues between Baxter and MacDonald. MacDonald was screwed over by Baxter in some sort of election process I believe and it seems (one argument) that he wanted to get this done before Baxter came along as kind of a media darling and found fault with MacDonald's work. It backfired because the press certainly found fault with MacDonald's expediency.

Mike

[claire]

Nice work, Frank. The brevity of the inquest has long troubled me...if I can borrow Lynn's analogy of the lurking and difficult question, what I have always wondered is: what could that question (issue/topic) be that could motivate such a dash through an inquest?

[Rubyretro]

Steak tartare et worcestshire sauce.

You've just put me off my lunch, David...or maybe, I will go for vegetables and cheese....