The Coroner's Role

So What Happens Next: The Coroner


As most of you know, I write mysteries set in the early years of the 19th century, the Regency period. As I mentioned in my previous blog about law enforcement during that period, I’m fascinated by the processes at play in the process of catching a murderer. I mean, I’d better be, since I write mysteries, right?

So here’s a bit more detail about what happens when a murder is committed before the days of CSI or even a regular police force, Scotland Yard, and all those wonderful detectives.

Make a Hue and Cry

If James Everyman witnesses a murder or finds a dead body, the first thing he has to do is make “hue and cry,” the equivalent of calling 9-1-1 (emergency services) today. Hue and cry is actually required by law, first instituted in 1285 by the Statute of Winchester. The purpose was to alert folks to the crime and catch the criminal (theoretically fleeing). Anyone who witnessed a crime was required to make hue and cry, not just constables, and the alarm would spread through the countryside in an effort to alert folks and catch the bad guy.

The interesting part to modern folks who are used to calling 9-1-1 and then leaving matters in the hands of law enforcement officials, is that historically, all able-bodied men who heard the hue and cry (it included, literally, shouting to notify folks to the crime and the fleeing criminal) were required to help in the pursuit. Just like a posse in a western.

By the Regency, there was actually a police magazine, Police Gazette, often called The Hue and Cry which gave details about folks wanted for crimes. The magazine was started in 1772 by John Fielding (chief magistrate of the Bow Street Court at that time) and initially called The Quarterly Pursuit. It went through several names to eventually settle on Police Gazette or Hue and Cry by 1828. The magazine included information about rewards offered for information or the capture of criminals, notices about criminals, and requests for information.

It’s still published today through Scotland Yard.

Coroner’s Jury – The Inquest

So what does John Everyman do, now? Well, we’re going to assume there’s no murderer standing over the body clutching a bloody knife and babbling his confession. So John Everyman has discovered a body and made hue and cry. The constable and the coroner respond to the hue and cry and round up a dozen or so men to view the body in situ (if possible). Between twelve and twenty-four men will make up this coroner’s jury and they are required to examine the body in any case of suspicious death. The dead person can’t be buried until this is done, therefore the law stipulates that it must be done within a few days of finding the body.

And this may seem odd to us today, but the jury examines the corpse, and I do mean literally examines, for signs of violence or clues that could assist in coming to the right verdict. Since there was no refrigeration in the 19th century, the inquest had to be held as quickly as possible, usually within a day or so of the death. The jury could also ask questions of witnesses during the inquest—they are active participants in the proceedings. Remember, this is the coroner’s jury and inquest and their only mission is to categorize the death as one of the following: murder (or manslaughter); suicide (self-murder); accidental death; or natural causes. They aren’t concerned with identifying the murderer, if it was murder, although if that comes out in the inquest, the responsible party would be bound over for trial.

In fact, the purpose of the inquest was very specific. They are only intended to establish the following facts:

• The identity of the deceased;

• How, when and where the death occurred; and

• Draw attention to anything that might lead to further deaths.

When the inquest is concluded, the findings are recorded in a formal document called the inquisition and include an attestation signed by the coroner and the jury. The inquisition must contain: the name of the deceased; the injury/disease causing the death; the date, time, place & circumstances of the death; and the conclusion (or verdict). Naturally, if the condition of the body precludes identification, that shall be duly noted.

We'll continue with this look at law enforcement, forensics and other fun facts about catching murderers in the 19th century in the next few blogs. Stay tuned!

And note, on Feb 1 and 2, 2012, The Vital Principle will be free on Amazon! So be sure to mark your calendars and grab a copy if you've been dying to read book 1 in the Second Sons Inquiry Agency series of Regency mysteries.

The Vital Principle
A cold draft, a candle extinguished, darkness…and yet…nothing except a suggestion, a touch of the unknown. Did they truly contact the spirit world or is it all an illusion? Perhaps it’s simply a clever fraud perpetrated by spiritualist, Prudence Barnard. Their host, Lord Crowley, certainly suspects her. He hired an inquiry agent to prove it and yet the agent has proved nothing.


The truth remains as illusive as the fading smoke from the candle.

With shaking hands the small group of guests relight the candles and turn to each other in relief. All returns to normal until Lord Crowley suddenly dies, poisoned by an unseen killer. Who would do such a thing? Someone, or some thing, in the shadowy room? Everyone present is well-known, a longtime friend, except Prudence and the inquiry agent.

It must be the spiritualist. She is guilty, she’s the stranger in the room, the unknown entity.

And all eyes turn to inquiry agent, Knighton Gaunt, to uncover the truth.

But is Prudence really a murderess, or an innocent bystander? Knighton isn’t sure. She might be a charlatan, but his instincts warn him that there are other forces at play at Rosecrest, forces that remain hidden beneath a jovial façade. He takes a chance on Prudence to set a trap for the murderer.

But will the murderer take the bait or will someone else at Rosecrest die before Knighton can work his way through the maze of deceit and lies woven by the innocent-seeming guests?

“The Vital Principle” is the first in the Second Son’s Inquiry Agency series of mysteries, featuring the agency’s coolly intellectual founder, Knighton Gaunt. Other books include a variety of inquiry agents associated with Second Sons, or the illustrious founder. The series is set in England’s fascinating Regency period in the early years of the 19th century, when King George III was deemed unfit to rule and the Prince Regent, the eventual George IV, ruled in his stead.

Each volume stands alone as a mystery touched with romance.
'
Enjoy!

Law Enforcement in Historical Mysteries

Law Enforcement in Historical Mysteries...What to do?

I’ve been doing a blog tour (and I’m giving away one $25 Amazon gift certificate for Jan, Feb and Mar, 2012, so be sure to check it out, the list of blogs is on my News page) and one of the question that a lot of folks ask me in my interviews is why I chose to write during the first half of the 19th century. This period in England is often called the Regency period, although technically that only lasted from 1811 through 1820 when the Prince of Wales ruled as Prince Regent when his father, King George III, was considered unfit to do so.

The sort answer to the question of "Why the Regency?" is that it was a pretty darn interesting period. The roots of policing, forensics, medicine, and most branches of science as we know them started to develop along modern lines. What I’d like to do is reveal a bit about these developments through blogs to describe some interesting background information for my Regency mysteries. While the Second Sons Inquiry Agency in many of my books is entirely fictional, it is an organization that could have existed. At that period, law enforcement was largely funded privately. Odd as it might seem today, private individuals (most often the victim) were responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminals.

It’s a fascinating subject, and for this blog, I’d like to talk about law enforcement, although it will be in sort of generalized terms to avoid the high eye-glaze coefficient that this topic can engender. Law enforcement hasn’t always been as formalized as it is today.

It wasn’t until 1829, that Sir Robert (Bobby) Peel’s leadership established the modern British police force through an Act of English Parliament. It even specified the use of the word “police.” For those who have heard the term “peelers” or “bobbies” for British police, this is also the origin for those terms. The Bow Street runners were charged with keeping the King’s (or Queen’s) peace, just like bobbies do today.

At first, this mostly consisted of The Bow Street Patrols (Bow Street runners); Police Office constables under the control of the Magistrates; and the Marine police (river police). These groups were later melded into the Metropolitan Police Force in 1839 for the City of London.

But if the police force didn’t exist before 1829, how were laws enforced and criminals caught?

Initially, sheriffs, reeves and groups of men acting as juries provided law enforcement. Most of us have heard of sheriffs from Robin Hood movies. They basically kept order and maintained the King’s interests locally. From 1500 onward, private watchmen, thief-takers, etc. performed law enforcement activities. Watchmen were often funded by private individuals or organization and rewarded for catching criminals.

By the 17th and 18th centuries, there were parish constables and the Justice of the Peace. The constable was appointed to serve for a period of one year. He wasn’t paid and he worked in co-operation with the Justice of the peace to maintain order. In larger towns, there were guilds that became known as The Watch who were paid to patrol the streets at night. By 1663 in London, the night watchmen became the first paid law enforcement officers.

A gradual shift to government control over law enforcement really got underway in 1737. King George II initiated a scheme to pay London and Middlesex watchmen, using taxes as funding. Then in 1749, Henry Fielding’s famous Bow Street Runners were organized. They were essentially professional constables and by 1828 were the largest privately financed police force covering 45 parishes within a ten-mile radius of London.

In the early years of the 19th century, if a person wanted a constable to help him or her apprehend the perpetrator of a crime he had to pay the expenses of the investigation. Any English citizen could prosecute a crime and the prosecutor was often the victim of the crime. He had to file charges with the magistrate, present evidence to the grand jury and provide evidence. In the 18th century, rewards for the conviction of criminals ensured that citizens had incentive to prosecute, but they also led to abuses where people were accused of crimes they didn’t commit simply to collect the reward.

There was a particularly famous case of a thief-taker in 1720 who epitomized the corruption that led to Sir Robert Peel’s reforms. In London in 1720, Jonathan Wild had a gang of thieves under his control. When they stole, he’d often arrange to return the property and hand over someone, sometimes even a member of his gang who displeased him, and collect the reward. His shenanigans came to an end though when his perfidy was discovered and he was hung in 1725.

But thief-takers remained tainted with corruption. In 1754, there was another scandal similar to Wild’s where Stephen MacDaniel was caught prosecuting innocent men in order to collect the rewards. Again, this was another incentive to eliminate the system of rewards from victims hoping to regain their stolen property or gain justice. A salaried police force, i.e. Sir Robert Peel’s bobbies, seemed like the answer to cut the dependence upon rewards and their corrupting effect.

So there you have a few glimpses into the early history of law enforcement. I hope you found it interesting, as bits and pieces of my research have found their way into my historical mysteries, include The Vital Principle and A Rose Before Dying. I'll be talking more about law enforcement, forensics, and other such fascinating topics in future blogs (assuming I don't get a lot of comments like: "What the HECK are you THINKING?")