Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Varqm 37 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017) - by Tom_Wescott 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - by TradeName 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - by harry 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - by Abby Normal 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - by Pcdunn 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Scene of the Crimes: Blood oozing - (69 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (24 posts)
Letters and Communications: An experiment - (11 posts)
General Police Discussion: Missing Special Branch Record - (6 posts)
General Discussion: New claims Jack the Ripper was noted poet who studied as a priest in the North East - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017) - (4 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #781  
Old 12-02-2016, 10:52 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Lucky View Post
To be frank, after you produced that hilarious 'legal argument' that a writ of habeas corpus was required to free someone on bail who had been charged with a misdemeanour I wouldn't bother creating a 'legal argument' about anything for you, it would be a waste of time.
I don't particularly want to be deflected by this ancient topic (and I fully appreciate why you want to change the subject) but I have no idea why you find that statement "hilarious" because a writ of habeas corpus was indeed required to free someone on bail who had been charged with a misdemeanour. I don't know how else you think it could have been done, short of breaking someone out of prison. The relevant thread was a long time ago so no doubt you have forgotten that I cited law reports which proved this statement as well as quoting from the Habeas Corpus act of 1679.

The thread was "Tumblety's Bail – A Fresh Perspective". See especially my post #70 dated 12 April 2015:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8811&page=7

The irony is that back then you also introduced legal gibberish mumbo jumbo into the discussion with your misunderstanding of the R v Mullins decision and your bizarre, irrelevant and wholly unsupported statements regarding the concept of corpus delecti.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 12-02-2016, 10:58 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Lucky View Post
firstly you are clearly blissfully unaware of the difference between what’s said under oath and what’s not at the time,
No idea what you are talking about. Looks like gibberish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Lucky View Post
and the weight that carried in the context of the times, with a deeply religious culture and an almost total reliance on verbal evidence to convict.
Gibberish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Lucky View Post
Secondly, the events surrounding this murder are unique in themselves, the fact the city solicitor is at an inquest is itself an exceptional event , and on top of that my argument is a precautionary one.
I agree that the city solicitor did not normally appear in cases of murder although he did appear quite frequently at inquests, mainly in respect of deaths from fires – that is probably because there were not that many murders in the city of London but lots of fires - but, legally speaking, there was nothing unique about the murder of Eddowes. It was a murder. That's it. All the same legal rules apply.

Here's a challenge for you Mr Lucky. If you think that the city solicitor feared some kind of challenge by a defence counsel at trial in respect of Lawende's evidence, write a submission in the form a defence counsel would have made it before the judge at the trial (setting out within that submission what the defence counsel wanted to achieve, i.e. exclusion of Lawende's evidence or abandonment of the trial or whatever, and the legal grounds on which he expected the judge to rule in his favour). Then perhaps we can at least understand what you think might have been on the city solicitor's mind. At the moment your argument is vague, contradictory and virtually incomprehensible (apart, of course, from being legal gibberish).
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 12-02-2016, 11:01 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Lucky View Post
With that in mind its clear to me that your endless demands for me to produce similar examples, like your demands for 'legal arguments' when you don't know the basics, is a further demonstration of someone playing to the crowd and who has no genuine or honest interest in the matter.
I can only laugh at the expression "endless demands for me to produce similar examples". That is called precedent, Mr Lucky. That's how the law works. It's based on statute and precedent.

If you don’t have a statute and/or you don't have a precedent then, if you can't even cite a leading text book, you don't have a legal argument. Authority HAS to be provided.

All we have had so far is your unsubstantiated opinion which has no legal support behind it whatsoever. Even if for some reason you don't agree with a single word I have written, the onus is entirely on your to support your argument. If you can't do it (and you plainly can't) then it can only be legal gibberish.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 12-02-2016, 11:12 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Lucky View Post
Taking your compulsive and involuntary reliance on the word “gibberish” into account I'll accept that as a public accusation that I’m lying and I think we can leave it there
What can you possibly think I am accusing you of lying about? You haven't included any facts in your posts, merely unsupported opinion. To be clear, I think you are terribly misguided in that you seem to have convinced yourself that you know something about legal matters whereas it's patently obvious that you don't.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 12-18-2016, 10:29 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
What can you possibly think I am accusing you of lying about? You haven't included any facts in your posts, merely unsupported opinion. To be clear, I think you are terribly misguided in that you seem to have convinced yourself that you know something about legal matters whereas it's patently obvious that you don't.
Wrong post.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 12-29-2016, 12:15 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
At the Eddowes inquest Lawende was about to testify about the dress of the man he saw together with Eddowes near the murder site.

But Lawende was silenced by the city solicitor.

The city solicitor said that for particular reasons evidence about the dress of the man should not be given.

The only thing Lawende was allowed to say was that the man had a peaked cap.

Why did they withhold the information about the dress of the man seen with Eddowes before the murder?

Source: Shields Daily Gazette - Thursday 11 October 1888
More sources with the same content:

Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - Thursday 11 October 1888
South Wales Echo - Thursday 11 October 1888
Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette - Friday 12 October 1888

And in the original inquest sources Lawende states that he has given his description to the police (Evans & Skinner, p. 297).

Regards, Pierre
And what were those "particular reasons"?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 12-29-2016, 12:16 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
And what were those "particular reasons"?
I am just a simple historian asking questions.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 12-29-2016, 12:45 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,600
Default

From the Times 6 June 1984:

Bomb Inquiry Moves to Spain

by John Witherow

A man wanted for questioning about the murder of a Kent housewife who died after a parcel bomb exploded at her home is believed to have fled to Spain.

Kent police, who described the man as dangerous said they had alerted Interpol to help the search for the killer of Mrs Barbara Harrold, who died from injuries a week after a tube packed with nails exploded in her hands at Ighatham, near Sevenoaks on May 21.

The man who is in his 50s was seen at Bearsted post office on the outskirts of Maidstone where the bomb was posted three days before the explosion.

The motive for the bombing is still uncertain.

The development in the murder hunt occurred during the weekend when police searched a house near Maidstone where the man had been staying. They found equipment thought to have been used by the bomber.

The police are withholding the man's name for operational reasons but said that "he is known to be an Englishman who was in possession of a Spanish-registered car".


Clearly the police withheld the man's name because he was a police officer. It's obvious. There can't possibly be any other explanation.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 01-01-2017, 03:32 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,466
Default

Perhaps Pierre will reveal his suspect in 2017 then again perhaps not.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.