Double event victims - Throat wounds

[Fisherman]

eventually the killer had immunity from prosecution (Oops)

If I am not much mistaken, this is the second time I pick up on this detail in a post of yours.
Would you care to expand on it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

If I am not much mistaken, this is the second time I pick up on this detail in a post of yours.
Would you care to expand on it?

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

Everyone, even Jack the Ripper, must have a fair trial.
if he can't have a fair trial, the trial doesn't happen.

[Wickerman]

Fish,

Everyone, even Jack the Ripper, must have a fair trial.
if he can't have a fair trial, the trial doesn't happen.

The trial will happen, it may need a different venue, extraordinary restrictions may also be imposed, but a trial will take place.

"Fair trial" is perhaps too general a term, if there are specific concerns those concerns should be identified in order for them to be addressed.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Everyone, even Jack the Ripper, must have a fair trial.
if he can't have a fair trial, the trial doesn't happen.

I fail to see how a man like Lechmere (I trust we are both speaking of him) could have avoided a trial. I can´t see that happening. He was fit to stand trial, and after that, it is up to the legal system of the country to ensure that a fair trial could be provided.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;303930]The trial will happen, it may need a different venue, extraordinary restrictions may also be imposed, but a trial will take place.

But he would never get convicted if you and some of the others here were sitting on the jury that's for sure. For to secure a conviction would mean the end of life as you know it and you wouldn't want that would you ?

[Mr Lucky]

The trial will happen, it may need a different venue, extraordinary restrictions may also be imposed, but a trial will take place.

"Fair trial" is perhaps too general a term, if there are specific concerns those concerns should be identified in order for them to be addressed.

The trial cannot happen, and there is no remedy to this situation. The 'specific concerns' I am referring too were altered by statute during the twentieth century.

[Mr Lucky]

I fail to see how a man like Lechmere (I trust we are both speaking of him) could have avoided a trial. I can´t see that happening. He was fit to stand trial, and after that, it is up to the legal system of the country to ensure that a fair trial could be provided.

All the best,
Fisherman

You are basing this on your interpretation of the events on Buck's-row and your understanding of bringing the case to trial.

[Wickerman]

Ok, I'm just taking a step back to a previous post to be sure we are on the same wavelength.

"...eventually the killer had immunity from prosecution..."

You appear to suggest the killer was identified but no charges were laid because he couldn't get a fair trial?
What is the basis for that belief?

Then there are a couple of other issues..

Cross killed Nichols after he sent Paul to find a policeman

But, didn't Cross and Paul leave together?

- the killer stabbed his victims to death

What 'stab wounds' would you be referring to? (other than Tabram)

[Scott Nelson]

But, didn't Cross and Paul leave together?

I thought they did as well. Some clarification is needed.

[GUT]

The trial cannot happen, and there is no remedy to this situation. The 'specific concerns' I am referring too were altered by statute during the twentieth century.

G'day MrLucky

Perhaps you can help a poor old half dumb, 3/4 blind retard that's only been practicing as a Barrister for about 20 years now [though not in the UK], oh and who has sat on the bench on the odd occasion, and tell us what statute you have in mind, so we can see if there is any truth and you've stumbled across something we've missed though I must admit I've never looked at that angle, other than would you get an indictment or committal or would you even get a prima facie case. To be honest I've yet to see a suspect presented that if was asked to prosecute I wouldn't be saying "No Bill" it.

The only reason that I can see that the trial cannot happen is because we don't have an accused.

[Wickerman]

In the 19th century, and with British colonies basically world-wide, IF the circumstance ever arose that an accused could not receive a fair trial in Britain, then I am sure the proceedings would move off-shore.

I'm not sure such drastic measures have ever been necessary, but what is the alternative in Mr Lucky's view, to let him go?
We should perhaps wait for Mr Lucky to explain his view further, and provide some reasoning.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Wickerman

Ok, I'm just taking a step back to a previous post to be sure we are on the same wavelength.

To be fair I posted this out of exasperation, and may have done a bit of a faux pass, I originally posted this in an attempt to get Michael Richards to understand that I don't have the standard view of any of the murders, the views that he thinks I have - to try to prevent him making inferences that don't actually match with my opinions.

You appear to suggest the killer was identified but no charges were laid because he couldn't get a fair trial?

No that not what I have said, I have chosen the words carefully to carry the exact meaning I wanted them to, you have re-interpreted them to mean something else. The problem is theoretical, it may never have become factual, that isn't necessary for it to remain a problem.

What is the basis for that belief?

I don't have that belief !

But, didn't Cross and Paul leave together?

Simply;-
post Cross's testimony - yes
pre Cross's testimony - no

Of course if the woman was already dead when Cross arrived on the scene, what happen after isn't important....

What 'stab wounds' would you be referring to? (other than Tabram)

On this particular thread - the one's in the throats of the double event victims (I don't mean all the victims - I should have been slightly more careful with the choice of words)

[Mr Lucky]

I thought they did as well. Some clarification is needed.

Hi Scott,

Those leather apron 1st September articles - there was some other versions of the same agency telegram that stated; "two men first found the woman, one remain by her while the other fetched constable Neil"

See also Robert Paul's 'remarkable statement' - so I told the other man I would send the first policeman I found

[Mr Lucky]

G'day MrLucky

Perhaps you can help a poor old half dumb, 3/4 blind retard that's only been practicing as a Barrister for about 20 years now [though not in the UK], oh and who has sat on the bench on the odd occasion, and tell us what statute you have in mind, so we can see if there is any truth and you've stumbled across something we've missed though I must admit I've never looked at that angle, other than would you get an indictment or committal or would you even get a prima facie case. To be honest I've yet to see a suspect presented that if was asked to prosecute I wouldn't be saying "No Bill" it.

The only reason that I can see that the trial cannot happen is because we don't have an accused.

Hi GUT

Firstly isn't your legal system fully codified? - if so how often do you actually refer to Blackstone, Salk, Hale, Hawkins etc, ? How familiar are you with what happened at trial 120 years ago or how the process differed to now? or 220 years ago or 320 years ago? A recognisable schism had developed between giving evidence at trial and at inquest over the previous 600 years or so - and the statute I referred to rectified this.

Secondly, as only two pages ago you didn't even know which victims the phrase 'the Whitechapel murders' referred too, the idea you are familiar with enough these cases to make blanket statements about the possibility of trial I'll take with a pinch of salt.

[Mr Lucky]

In the 19th century, and with British colonies basically world-wide, IF the circumstance ever arose that an accused could not receive a fair trial in Britain, then I am sure the proceedings would move off-shore.

I'm not sure such drastic measures have ever been necessary, but what is the alternative in Mr Lucky's view, to let him go?
We should perhaps wait for Mr Lucky to explain his view further, and provide some reasoning.

Ok, I see what you mean - fair trial - 'without the jury being prejudiced' ,
no, that's not what I'm referring to.