Elizabeth Phoenix

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I'd be interested to learn why Mrs. Elizabeth Phoenix, who went voluntarily to Leman Street police station at around 9.00 pm on Sunday 11th November and gave intricate details of Mary Kelly's past history, was not summoned to appear next day at the inquest.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Because Wynne Baxter was not the coroner, that's why. They took it away from him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Sorry, I don't understand.

What has the identity of the coroner got to do with Mrs. Phoenix being a potential witness?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Hey Simon,

What is the purpose of inquests?

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Blimey, you've got me there.

Kindly explain.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

An inquest is a legal inquiry into the medical cause and circumstances of a death. It is held in public - sometimes with a jury - by a coroner, in cases where the death was, violent or unnatural, took place in prison or police custody or when the cause of death is still uncertain after a post-mortem.

As Mrs Phoenix's testimony bares no relation to Kellys death, refers to Kellys death or the events in November 88 there was no reason to call her.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

As Mrs Phoenix's testimony bares no relation to Kellys death, refers to Kellys death or the events in November 88 there was no reason to call her.

But wasn't this the case with many of the witnesses called at other inquests? That many of the witnesses had no evidence that would enlighten time or cause of death? It seems to me that inquests served to a) establish the identity of the victim, b) establish the lifestyle of the victim, c) establish cause of death, and d) establish the identity of the murderer. At least, I see all this in many inquests.

You seem to be telling us the official line of what inquests were SUPPOSED to be, but that doesn't seem to have had much bearing on what they actually were.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Simon,

My original point was that Baxter probably would have called her.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Thank you.

Given the reasons for your dismissal of Mrs Phoenix as a material witness, you might care to explain the appearance at Elizabeth Stride's inquest of the two time-wasting dimwads Mary Malcolm and Elizabeth Stokes, neither of whose testimony had any eventual bearing on Stride's death or identity, but instead appears to have had more to do with the latter not having been a bigamist . . . or even worse.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Simon, Tom,

Firstly, I don't dismiss Mr Phoenix. I'm providing a possible reason which is what you asked for in your original post.

Secondly, the reason why Mrs Malcolm and Stokes were called to Stride and why Mrs Phoenix was not to Kellys is as Tom states, different Coroners in my opinion.

The Coroners drive the inquest. They view the testimonies and call the witnesses. Its obvious MacDonald didn't feel Phoenix had anything to provide which would draw conclusion on Kellys death.

Baxter seems to be a bit more flamboyant, a showman as it were. MacDonald seems to have just been concerned with the direct events. This is probably why his inquest into Kelly was a lot shorter.

Just my opinion.

Monty

[Hunter]

Baxter was certainly flamboyant and self assertive and he attempted to ride the wide exposure that the Nichols and Chapman murders represented for all they were worth, until his almost fatal error on the final day of the Chspman inquest. However, his experience as a solicitor and a coroner had taught him that it was best to gather all of the information available as quickly as possible while the crime or incident was fresh. Evidence could be lost, memories fade and witnesses could be hard to track down. He honestly thought that a very thorough inquest, conducted right on the heels of a crime, could benefit a later trial... and it did on several occasions. The Percy Mapleton and Lipski cases come to mind.

On the downside, such detailed inquiries were costly, required several adjournments which didn't set well with jurors, and sometimes revealed information that the police would rather keep to themselves.

Roderick Macdonald had been Baxter's political opponent in the 1886 election and was well aware of the negative publicity Baxter had received in the wake of his 'Burke and Hare' theory. He had also been a police surgeon and was sympathetic to their concerns during an ongoing investigation. He intentionally set a contrasting example to Baxter and followed the minimum requirement for conducting his inquest, even though it was part of an infamous series of murders.

I don't know if we would be privy to much more evidence regarding the Kelly murder if Baxter had conducted the inquest, but it is more likely that we might know who Mary Kelly really was.

[Howard Brown]

Secondly, the reason why Mrs Malcolm and Stokes were called to Stride and why Mrs Phoenix was not to Kellys is as Tom states, different Coroners in my opinion.--Neil

Neil....Mrs. Malcolm claimed that Stride was her sister. That, to me, is the reason she was permitted to participate at Stride's Inquest.
Had she appeared at the Coroner's court for Kelly's Inquest with the same spiel, I believe Macdonald would have allowed her to participate.

[Wickerman]

Coroner's Inquest in order to establish:

1 - Identification of deceased.
2 - Cause of death.
3 - Time of death.
4 - Place of death.

Witnesses summonsed to appear at the discretion of the Coroner.

But wasn't this the case with many of the witnesses called at other inquests? That many of the witnesses had no evidence that would enlighten time or cause of death?

Those fell under "Coroner's discretion".

It seems to me that inquests served to a) establish the identity of the victim,

Yes.

b) establish the lifestyle of the victim,

No.

c) establish cause of death,

Yes.

and d) establish the identity of the murderer.

No. That is purely a police matter.

You seem to be telling us the official line of what inquests were SUPPOSED to be, but that doesn't seem to have had much bearing on what they actually were.

The above, coupled with your b) would also fall under Coroner's discretion.

The Coroner had to read all the pertinent statements given to police in order for him to decide who's testimony had a bearing on points 1, 2, 3, 4.
Any other witnesses called fall into that 'grey area' which was subject to each individual Coroner's whim.

And, I agree with you, in so far as you seem to think that we would have known more about the circumstances of Kelly's death had Baxter conducted the Inquiry.

Regards, Jon S.

[Dave O]

"and d) establish the identity of the murderer.
No. That is purely a police matter."

Well, yes and no. A Victorian inquest could make an accusation of murder and manslaughter, but it wouldn't be conclusive. It's just preliminary, a charge. A criminal trial determined guilt or innocence, yeah? Here's an example of a coroner issuing an arrest warrant for manslaughter based on an inquest verdict. Later, there was a trial: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...5&postcount=54

An inquest tried to determine these basic facts: who, where, when, and how. In murder and manslaughter cases, "by whom" would fit into the "how", if they had evidence. Inquests don't do "by whom" anymore.

Dave

[Wickerman]

"and d) establish the identity of the murderer.
No. That is purely a police matter."

Well, yes and no. A Victorian inquest could make an accusation of murder and manslaughter, but it wouldn't be conclusive. It's just preliminary, a charge. A criminal trial determined guilt or innocence, yeah? Here's an example of a coroner issuing an arrest warrant for manslaughter based on an inquest verdict. Later, there was a trial: http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...5&postcount=54

An inquest tried to determine these basic facts: who, where, when, and how. In murder and manslaughter cases, "by whom" would fit into the "how", if they had evidence. Inquests don't do "by whom" anymore.

Dave

Thankyou Dave.
Yes, the direction I was leaning towards was that in general the Coroner's Inquest will conclude by determining whether death was accidental, suicide, murder or misadventure. Any subsequent "identification of the murderer" is the purview of the police following the Inquest, not the Coroner's as part of the Inquest.
Again, generally speaking.

Regards, Jon S.