This is a bit odd.

[Olde Crone]

I've just been looking at someone's tree.

One of her 2 x GGMs died quite young and she sent for the DC. It came back with the cause of death as "wilful murder".

There was plenty about it in the local papers, but here's the odd bit.....her husband was cleared of murdering her. There was no one else involved - she had given birth a few hours earlier in the day and he had for some reason (drink is suggested) thrown her outside, where she caught a chill and subsequently died.

So, no one actually murdered her, but her death cert says that someone did!

OC

[Margaret in Burton]

Oooerrrrrrr

[samesizedfeet]

when was the death certificate issued in relation to the inquest that decided she wasn't murdered?

[Margaret in Burton]

A full death cert isn't issued until after the inquest. We still only have an interim death cert for my FIL. Inquest on Aug 3rd.

[Olde Crone]

Really very odd. The inquest decided she had been wilfully murdered by her husband and passed the case upwards to the Assizes, who decided after trial that the husband was not guilty of wilful murder, nor manslaughter, nor of aggravated assault. But no one seems to have altered the death cert.

(The usual stuff at the trial - women who have been recently confined are known to be irrational and hysterical and she must have run outside in her underclothes, given herself two black eyes, a huge black bruise in the small of her back and several such large bruises on her legs that they had burst her varicose veins...yeah, right)

OC

[maggie_4_7]

I've just been looking at someone's tree.

One of her 2 x GGMs died quite young and she sent for the DC. It came back with the cause of death as "wilful murder".

There was plenty about it in the local papers, but here's the odd bit.....her husband was cleared of murdering her. There was no one else involved - she had given birth a few hours earlier in the day and he had for some reason (drink is suggested) thrown her outside, where she caught a chill and subsequently died.

So, no one actually murdered her, but her death cert says that someone did!

OC

ooooh how nasty is that :mad:

What happened to the baby?

[Olde Crone]

The baby grew up and married! No one in the family knew anything about the murder trial, there had never been the shadow of a whisper about it.

The older children (11, 10, 9) were made to give evidence at the trial, despite a neighbour's repeated statements that the children were very afraid of their father. Naturally, they had seen nothing, heard nothing.....

OC

[Margaret in Burton]

What sort of era are we talking about here?

[Olde Crone]

Sorry, I always think you lot are mind readers, lol!

It was 1887.

OC

[Merry]

That sounds a lot like OH's gggg-aunt (sorry if you have heard this before!)......she was a 'lady of the night' who tried to steal some money (4d) from one of her 'gentlemen'. He spotted what she was doing and stabbed her in the stomach with a four inch knife. She didn't die for two hours and gave his description to the Dr. The landlord of the pub where she had a room chased the man and caught him - he was covered in blood and still had the knife on him. The inquest found that she was murdered and he was sent for trial at the local assises. The trial jury found him not guilty, because a man would not be responsible for his actions immediately after a sexual act!! (words to that effect, anyway). In this case there was no death cert as it was too early, but the local vicar made sure people remembered as he wrote 'murdered by a soldier' in the PRs alongside her burial entry.

[Olde Crone]

Well, it seemed he did not get away scot free. He lost his farm which was described at the trial as "one of the best in the area" and can be seen on subsequent census as an ag lab, finally dying in the workhouse.

But it has made me wonder - who is ACTUALLY responsible for amending a Coroner's death cert and how would that amendment be triggered?

OC

[samesizedfeet]

I don't think the outcome of a trial would affect the entry on a death certificate, would it?

A coroner's decision as to cause of death doesn't change.

In theory, if the coroner has decided it was murder but someone has been found not guilty then it remains an open murder case.

[Margaret in Burton]

Well, it seemed he did not get away scot free. He lost his farm which was described at the trial as "one of the best in the area" and can be seen on subsequent census as an ag lab, finally dying in the workhouse.

But it has made me wonder - who is ACTUALLY responsible for amending a Coroner's death cert and how would that amendment be triggered?
OC

I can only go by OH's aunts inquest in 2003. Me and FIL went to the inquest. The coroner said her date of birth which was a year out. FIL stood up and said "sir that is wrong" LOL

Luckily I had thought to take her birth cert with me and produced it to the clerk of the court. They agreed the date was wrong, but when we were given the death cert the date of birth was STILL wrong. FIL complained and it was altered. He also had to complain that it was just altered without a note or signature as to why.

Basically if no one said that the death cert should be altered in those days, then it's still happening now.

No one really cares in my opinion.

[Olde Crone]

Zoe

Ah, but the Coroner has named the murderer on the DC.

Margaret

I'm sure you are right - a friend's father's death was wrongly registered as Bert Smith, when his name was actually Herbert. It would have been such a rigmarole to change it that my friend decided to leave it. Hard luck anyone looking for him in 100 years time, lol.

OC

[Margaret in Burton]

OC

I'd said to FIL before we went, shall I take these certs that we had found in her house? He said well I don't suppose we'll need them. Good job I did. The coroner refused to believe that her date of birth was just under a year after FIL's. He said it was too soon. FIL said my dad was in a bit of a hurry after being a prisoner in WW1 for 3 years. LOL :D:D

There was only 11 months between them but we did provide the proof.

[Mary from Italy]

I have a similar death cert; the cause of death is "wilful murder", which was the inquest verdict, but the suspects were found not guilty when they were tried.

[Kit]

A not guilty verdict can mean that there was not enough evidence to convict rather than that they didn't do it.

I suspect though that the amount of evidence required for a inquest is not as high as a court case.

[Olde Crone]

That's interesting Mary. So it would seem the Coroner's verdict stands, never mind the outcome of any subsequnt trial.

OC

[Mary from Italy]

Sounds like it. As Kit says, the not guilty verdict doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it, but as far as the law's concerned, they're innocent, so I'm surprised there seems to be no provision for changing the death cert.

Mine related to a death in Yorkshire in 1865, by the way. As a matter of interest, the baby died when it was a few days old, but was only buried a couple of weeks later. It was only a few weeks later that suspicion was aroused, the baby was exhumed and an inquest was conducted, leading to the verdict of murder.

There was no death cert issued before the inquest as far as I can see; in fact the child's birth never seems to have been registered, probably because the mother and grandmother (who were charged with the murder) hoped that no-one would find out about its existence.

[Nell]

Interesting. I have a death cert for Sarah Moss and it states that cause of death was "Her throat was cut by William Mealing against whom a verdict of wilful murder was returned ".

William was my gt x 3 uncle. He was found innocent on the grounds of insanity but clearly he death cert implies he was guilty.

[Olde Crone]

This is really quite interesting isn't it - it appears that a Coroner's verdict stands and that a verdict reached in a court of law is a mere incidental!

OC

[Mary from Italy]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. The suspect is still innocent in the eyes of the law, whatever the death cert says. I wonder if the death cert would be changed if somebody specifically applied to the Registrar to do so?

[Kit]

OC not many people are going to have access to the death cert though and those around at the time will know the result of a court case.

My 2g grandfather's coroner's report summary (the report appears to have been destroyed) states he was feloniously injured by Mr X. I can find no record of Mr X being tried or held accountable for the death. So the coroner can say what they want, it doesn't mean it will be followed up.

[maggie_4_7]

Interesting. I have a death cert for Sarah Moss and it states that cause of death was "Her throat was cut by William Mealing against whom a verdict of wilful murder was returned ".

William was my gt x 3 uncle. He was found innocent on the grounds of insanity but clearly he death cert implies he was guilty.

Well technically guilty but not lawfully. In terms of of the law not guilty. I would expect that naming the suspect wouldn't be allowed on a death cert now would it?

[Olde Crone]

Kit

My understanding is that Coroners have historically had more powers than the police and until relatively recently could and did act completely independently.

It just seems odd to me that we have what appears to be two legal versions of events, if you like - one which declares someone was murdered, another which declares they weren't. Only one version can be correct.

Just suppose....the man had insured his wife's life. The Coroner says he murdered her, the law court says he didn't. Must the Insurance company pay out, because the only death certificate they have states clearly that she was murdered by her husband.

OC

[kiterunner]

I believe that nowadays the inquest is not allowed to give a verdict stating who was responsible for a death, just what the cause was.
See the following link:
http://www.suddendeathandthecoroner.org.uk/page23.html

[Kit]

OC I would think the insurance company would have to pay out. The coroner can't put someone in gaol, that is what the trial is for. If a court of law said the person was not guilty I think that would be the end of the matter. I don't think a coroner gives/gave people a right of reply to defend themselves.

[Kit]

I believe that nowadays the inquest is not allowed to give a verdict stating who was responsible for a death, just what the cause was.
See the following link:
http://www.suddendeathandthecoroner.org.uk/page23.html

I wonder when that came on Kate. Obviously from the death certs mentioned above the coroner did name who they believed to be guilty people. Unless they were acting outside of their powers when they did so.

[Olde Crone]

There seems very little point in allowing a Coroner to find a verdict of murder then and I assume that this practise was a left over from ancient law.

Reading between the lines, I imagine a coroner can only now issue an interim death cert stating cause of death as murder, and a proper final death cert is issued at the end of any criminal proceedings.

OC

[kiterunner]

This is taken from the Surrey coroner's website:
Where a person has been charged with murder or manslaughter, 'child destruction' (killing a foetus after 28 weeks), infanticide, causing death by reckless driving or taking part in another person's suicide, the inquest is postponed until the person's trial is over. Before adjourning, the coroner finds out who the deceased was and how he or she died.

After the criminal proceedings, the coroner may restart the inquest. If the coroner decides not to hold an inquest, the Registrar of Deaths is given a certificate with the result of the criminal proceedings, so that they can register the death.


http://www.surreycoroner.info/workofcoroners.html

[Olde Crone]

Thanks Kate, that sounds much more sensible!

OC

[Kit]

I agree with OC, much more sensible.

Although the way we thought it was all the coroner had to do was not name names. Surely they can work out someone was murdered but whether it was the butler who did it is another matter.

[Phoenix]

In this day and age, a body can be kept on ice for ages. A friend's family was destroyed when her brother, who had joined the Foreign Legion, "fell from a balcony" in France.

It was suspected that he had been helped to his death. The body was returned to this country, but then nothing happened for months. Whether her parents would have also died very soon afterwards I don't know, but my friend felt that the strain of waiting contributed to both their deaths.

A hundred years ago, you wouldn't have had the luxury of a wait. You would have had to have determined the cause of death promptly, to enable interment to take place.