The 120 year old trail is freezing

[Chris]

Chris
I'm afraid I'm correct in this regard.
Any prisoner HMP'd under Victoria would have automatically been released upon her death unless the new monarch had signed the section.
As a gesture the new king did in fact not sign some of the sections and allowed them to be released.

Can you provide your evidence for this, please?

(NB I believe "section" in this context refers to the Mental Health Act of 1983.)

[George Hutchinson]

I kinda meant a tick a box kinda poll - that would be without attribution ie anonymous. Not sure how to set up such a poll - so would be grateful to any willing person who has the technical ability to do so (assuming of course others are interested in such a poll!).

Hi Sasha. We have these kind of polls every couple of weeks. There must be countless threads eventually boiling down to 'Who do you think it was'. I have no idea and I honestly do not care. I'd be interested to know if it was ever discovered but for myself, like (I suspect) most on here, that quest was left behind many years ago with the realisation we will never know.

PHILIP

[Sasha]

Hi Sasha. We have these kind of polls every couple of weeks. There must be countless threads eventually boiling down to 'Who do you think it was'. I have no idea and I honestly do not care. I'd be interested to know if it was ever discovered but for myself, like (I suspect) most on here, that quest was left behind many years ago with the realisation we will never know.

PHILIP

I agree, Philip. Still, I would find it interesting to know where everyone on this forum stands. Of course I could extrapolate for myself simply from the number of hits on a particular subject but this is fraught with noise!

Cheers
Sasha

[Cap'n Jack]

Yes, Chris, I use the term 'section' for my own majestic pleasure.
There is an account of a tribe of under-secretary's - and their like - furiously producing new HMP's for the patients in Broadmoor upon the demise of Queen Victoria. I believe I may have posted that account here or elsewhere some considerable time ago.
I also believe the account is available on the 'Making of the Modern Law' web site.
I'll make a deal with you.
You show me that the account doesn't exist, and I'll show you that it does.
But you do the donkey work first, and I'll pull your reign later, at my majestic pleasure.

[Chris]

AP

I think you must be misremembering something, in the same way you were misremembering about "Her Majesty's Pleasure" implying legal innocence.

But I'm afraid I don't have the time to look for your evidence for you, and in any case I don't have access to the website you mention.

[Cap'n Jack]

Despite the clouds of alcohol and confusion that surround me, Chris, that befuddled I ain't, old chap.
Just take a gander on the JTR Forums site, where I discuss the murder case involving Ralph and Caroline Dyer; and I have been at great pains to point out the radically different sentences handed down by the court in this case, although both prisoners were detained at 'His Majesty's Pleasure'.
Ralph Dyer, sentence of:
'Verdict of guilty, but insane at the time.'
Caroline Dyer, sentence of:
'Found that the prisoner was insane and unable to plead.'

I hope you can see that Caroline was found not guilty, because she was unable to plead to 'guilty' or 'not guilty, whereas Ralph was able to plead, and hence found guilty.
Caroline was innocent, in legal terms, because she was unable to plead.

[Chris]

AP

What I wrote was this:
"I'm not an expert on this, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think - and the article we're discussing bears this out - "guilty but insane", rather than "not guilty by reason of insanity", was the norm at the time of the Whitechapel Murders and in the decades thereafter."

I wrote that in response to your claims that people held at HMP had (miscellaneously) been "acquitted", "pardoned" and "declared not guilty ... by the highest judicial power in the realm".

I was pointing out that that wasn't the case at the time of the Whitechapel Murders and afterwards, because the Trial of Lunatics Act in 1883 had replaced "not guilty by reason of insanity" with "guilty but insane".

The second example you've just given is one of someone being found unfit to plead, which is obviously quite different from someone pleading and being found not guilty. (Of course, a royal pardon is different again.) Incidentally, the other example you give - "guilty but insane" - backs up the point I was making, and shows that your original assertions were wrong.

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris, juggle it around whichever way you like, but a person who was not permitted to plead to an offence through reasons of insanity had never actually been processed by a court of law, the due process having been stopped, and the prisoner handed over to the reigning monarch of the time, without a plea being registered. This person could never be brought into court again. By reason of insanity the person had no guilt.
He was acquited.
As an example I'd be interested to hear your verison of the verdict that was passed down on Thomas Cutcush in 1891.
Was he ever convicted of a criminal offence?
Was he guilty of stabbing women?

[Chris]

AP

As I said, being found "unfit to plead" is quite different from being found "not guilty by reason of insanity". But I'm afraid you are just trying to confuse matters here.

My point is that the verdict applicable to HMP prisoners who were fit to plead, at the time of the Whitechapel Murders and afterwards, was "guilty but insane". So it is not correct to claim, as you did, that HMP prisoners had been "acquitted" or "declared not guilty".

The most you can say is that not all of them had been found guilty, because some of them had been unfit to plead. (Or - if I understand correctly - some of them may not even have been indicted.)

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris, there is only one confused person here, and I am the drunk one, who does know what he is talking about.

'ISAAC JOSEPH MAUERBERGER, Breaking Peace > threatening behaviour, 31st January 1887.


Reference Number: t18870131-243
Offence: Breaking Peace > threatening behaviour
Verdict: Miscellaneous > unfit to plead
Punishment: Imprisonment > insanity
See original
243. In the case of ISAAC JOSEPH MAUERBERGER (36) , indicted for feloniously sending a letter to Lord Rothschild threatening to murder him , the Jury, after hearing MR. WILLIAM FRANCIS GILBERT , surgeon of Holloway Prison, and DR. GEORGE FIELDING BLANDFORD , found the prisoner insane and unfit to take his trial .— Ordered to be detained until Her Majesty's pleasure be known.

'Unfit to take trial' does mean that the Isaac was never tried before a court of law, and was therefore innocent of any crime.
You can argue with me, but not the Old Bailey.

[Chris]

AP

I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe that you really can't understand the point I'm making.

Please just read it again carefully:
My point is that the verdict applicable to HMP prisoners who were fit to plead, at the time of the Whitechapel Murders and afterwards, was "guilty but insane". So it is not correct to claim, as you did, that HMP prisoners had been "acquitted" or "declared not guilty".

You know, there might actually be something interesting about this report. The author seems quite well informed about things in general. Why should he have thought that the Whitechapel Murderer had been committed to Broadmoor more than 15 years after the murders?

But it obviously can't be sensibly discussed without getting the background facts straight. That's all I'm trying to do. Does the response to that always have to be a barrage of this kind of silly obfuscation?

[Cap'n Jack]

Chris, your failure to make a distinction between 'guilty, but insane at the time', and 'the prisoner was insane and unable to plead', of which I have given you examples, must I fear place you on my ignore list.

[Chris]

Chris, your failure to make a distinction between 'guilty, but insane at the time', and 'the prisoner was insane and uable to plead', of which I have given you examples, must I fear place you on my ignore list.

OK, I'll explain one more time.

You claimed that HMP prisoners at this time - and quite clearly you meant all of them - had been "acquitted" or "declared not guilty".

I pointed out that this wasn't true, because the HMP prisoners on whom a verdict had been passed at this time had been found "guilty but insane".

The fact that some other HMP prisoners hadn't been found guilty is neither here nor there. A large number of HMP prisoners had been found guilty, so your claim was wrong.

I don't believe that you're incapable of understanding that, no matter how drunk you may be.

[Sox]

'Unfit to take trial' does mean that the Isaac was never tried before a court of law, and was therefore innocent of any crime.
You can argue with me, but not the Old Bailey.

Actually this should read............

Unfit to take trial' does mean that the Isaac was never tried before a court of law, and was therefore innocent of any crime, in the eyes of the law,
You can argue with me, but not the Old Bailey.

In the same way that DeSalvo went down in history as being the Boston Strangler, he was never tried for those murders so therefore, in the eyes of the law, he was not guilty, even though he may well have killed all those women.

/end confusion.

[traveller1st]

from hell

Hi all.

Sorry about the childish title but ive been up all night - mostly reading this thread it should be said.

i'm as new as new can be and despite the bickering albiet very polite, i've learnt some interesting things so ty for that.

To keep things simple i should explain why im here - i dont know who jack was and to be honest im not sure i want to just yet but what does interest me is the why and not the who.

i admire the depth of research that u guys go to to find things out but i also admire sensible and even random guesses about things and or suspects.

We all have something to offer.

I love the complicity of discussions (made that word up i think) but i also like that the simplest things can be the most important - ie. whitechapel 1888 a neighbour fails to make the connection that his french employer is called Jaques De Ripier - thats a comical example pls dont look for sources.

the one thing that jumps out at me tho is the sign off that Suzi uses - Ref Soul Music - ask me later.

Ok that was a long hello - sorry

Keep up the good work all.

Mark.