Help please! Rowland Adams Williams, Kelly Inquest, The Times

[mpriestnall]

Paul Begg's "Jack The Ripper - The Definitive History" mentions that the former deputy coroner of Crickhowell "was moved to write in the Times pointing out several deficiencies in the proceedings" (of Kelly's inquest).

I am looking into the legality of Kelly's inquest and would like to see a copy of his letter to the Times.

Can any one help with this please?

Thanks for any help.

[mpriestnall]

BTW I'm aware of Williams' criticism regarding the Chapman inquest.

JTRForums mentions this here but I cannot find as yet details of his criticism regarding the Kelly inquest.

[Wickerman]

It looks like the deputy coroner for Crickhowell was deceased before the Kelly inquest occurred.
There is a piece in Reynolds Weekly of 30 Sept. 1888 which refers to "the late deputy coroner for Crickhowell", which, as you can see, is prior to the Kelly murder.
Unless his replacement also took an interest in the Whitechapel Murders?
I'm still looking...

[Kattrup]

RAW was appointed deputy coroner 1879 to Crickwell and Tretower and on May 25th 1880 gave a concert in Pontypool as a vocalist in the Pontypool and Panteg Choral Society!

A new guy, Davies, was appointed 1891, but whether RAW was still in office then I cannot say.

As far as I can tell, RAW was born 1851 and died 1914, so he could certainly have written to the Times in 1888.

[DJA]

He died on Monday January 23,1893.

Attendance at his cremation was determined by a lottery.

[Wickerman]

In post 2 Martyn says he is aware of Williams criticism of the Chapman case, which this article published in The Graphic, 29 Sept. 1888, appears to refer to.

[Varqm]

The Kelly case was pressured to stop. I believe something was said during recess. An unusual inquest.

[DJA]

Mary Ann Kelly was baptized at St Leonard's,Shoreditch in 1859.

Henry Gawen Sutton joined the Vestry Board in 1867.

Her body was sent there so the Inquest would be held there.

[mpriestnall]

In post 2 Martyn says he is aware of Williams criticism of the Chapman case, which this article published in The Graphic, 29 Sept. 1888, appears to refer to.

Thank you very much for your help. Much appreciated.

[mpriestnall]

I was asked to come up with questions for the next WS interim meeting, which will be 3 questions about 1. the bloodhounds, 2. Packer and Alexander Bruce and the 3. the legality of the Kelly inquest.

So I am interested to see what RAW said about Kelly's inquest for the interim talk as well as for my book.

I'm sure other people on CB will be interested to see this and might be a topic for another thread?

[Kattrup]

I think Paul Begg's book has the footnote 25, a reference to RAW's letter about the Chapman inquest, as being in Times 26th September?

I haven't found any reference to RAW writing about the Kelly inquest, one might be tempted to speculate if it's the same letter which Begg mentions in the text about the Kelly inquest.

[mpriestnall]

I think Paul Begg's book has the footnote 25, a reference to RAW's letter about the Chapman inquest, as being in Times 26th September?

I haven't found any reference to RAW writing about the Kelly inquest, one might be tempted to speculate if it's the same letter which Begg mentions in the text about the Kelly inquest.

Thanks Kattrup for that. I took footnote 31 to refer to RAW's criticism of the Kelly's inquest as it within the footnotes at the end of the Kelly chapter. So maybe he only criticised the Chapman inquest? That does make sense to me and why noone has posted about any criticism by RAW of the Kelly inquest. Looks like you've cracked it then and it essentially a mistake on my part?

Thanks everyone!

[Kattrup]

Thanks Kattrup for that. I took footnote 31 to refer to RAW's criticism of the Kelly's inquest as it within the footnotes at the end of the Kelly chapter. So maybe he only criticised the Chapman inquest? That does make sense to me and why noone has posted about any criticism by RAW of the Kelly inquest. Looks like you've cracked it then and it essentially a mistake on my part?

Well thanks but I do not know if it's correct, I don't have the book at hand nor access to the newspaper archives. If it is correct, the mistake would be Paul Begg's who may have conflated criticism of two different inquests, accidentally writing about RAW's Chapman-letter in the section about the Kelly inquest.


This is RAW's letter to the Times, 26th September, taken from Casebook's press reports:

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES
Sir,

I have noticed no remark about Dr. Phillips withholding the description of the wounds.

By the Statute de Coronatore, the coroner is bound to inquire the nature, character, and size of every wound on a dead body and to enter the same on the roll.

Originally this was done super visum corporis, and the necessity of viewing the corpse thus arises, for it is the coroner's duty to explain the effect of the wounds and any appearances there may be. This is also a reason why the inquest should be commenced as soon as possible before any marks can be effaced, and even before it is moved.

In this case, had Dr. Phillips's evidence been given at once, as it ought to have been, and as I should have insisted, I think "Leather Apron" should not have been arrested. The criminal is probably a person making research from motives of science or curiosity, and not a drunken loafer. If the body had not been washed, and it is a contempt of the coroner's court to do so, there would probably have appeared on the body some finger mark, which would have been very useful.

The object of the inquest is to preserve the evidences of a crime, if any. Until some person is charged, the justices of the peace cannot act. Their function is to say whether a prima facie case has been made out against the prisoner. A prisoner may not be caught until the evidences of death have disappeared. It is, then, the duty of the coroner to register all the marks which there may be in case of death.

In Perryman's case, which depended upon the marks and bruises, I consider that the coroner did not take down the marks correctly, as proved by medical witnesses afterwards; and though I convinced Mr. Justice Stephen that there was some doubt in the case, causing Perryman to be respited during Her Majesty's pleasure and his execution commuted to imprisonment, I consider that had all the marks been examined soon after death, there must have been found hand marks on the top of the head if his mother were murdered, and none if, as I contended, she committed suicide. At the first inquest these marks would have been visible; at the trial before the Judge they would have been lost in post mortem discoloration. I did not come into the case until after condemnation and judgement. There was no evidence as to the marks on the top of the head.

Yours &c.
Rowland Addams Williams
Late deputy coroner for Crickhowell, Breconshire.
London, Sept. 22.

[Wickerman]

Nothing specifically to do with Rowlands opinion, but there were criticisms in the press over the sudden closing of the Kelly inquest. This paragraph in particular is one I recall. Some years ago I did discuss the accusations contained in this article with David Orsam, if I recall correctly he thought the details in the article were incorrect.

SUDDENLY CLOSING THE INQUEST,

Dr. Macdonald stated that the duty of the jury was merely to ascertain the cause of death, but the common law, since Edward I., has declared that in the language of the declaratory statute, "all the injuries of the body, also all wounds, ought to be viewed; and the length, breadth, and deepness, with what weapon, and in what part of the body the wound or hurt is; and how many be culpable, and how many wounds there be, and who gave the wounds - all which things must be enrolled in the roll of the coroner's." No question was put as to any of these points.
https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...r/s881114.html


In my opinion David took a narrow view explaining that while Macdonald did the absolute minimum his inquest was perfectly sound.
I still have my doubts, not to suggest there were illicit goings-on, but more along the lines that he didn't choose to waste anymore time on what was patently obvious to him, the how, where & by what means she was murdered.

[Varqm]

I've been arguing for years the Kelly inquest was pressured to stop in for ex. No PC in Dorset St thread.
I have other reasons but for one, after Barnett - if I remember correctly, the first witness, it was already understood Dr. Phillips was going to testify in another day.
The doctor was getting paid to do the post-mortem and testify about it but instead he only talked about his observations when inside Kelly's room.

As Williams argued the inquests with no suspect, no trial, was also a vehicle to gather sworn info about a murder/manslaughter. A murder\manslaughter changed the inquests. The "who,where when and how" where under the broader aim the "facts and circumstances" about the case. Most of the police's testimony for ex. had no or little bearing on the "who, where when and how", for ex. Halse,Collard, Abberline,Chandler,Long.

The inquest had to share the "who, where when and how" with the registrar (GRO).