An experiment

[GUT]

The Mr. Geoghegan who represented Mr. Levy Was Mr. Gerald Geoghegan who would represent Frederick Deeming in 1892 in his appeal of a death sentence in the colony of Victoria (Australia), and would defend Dr. Thomas Neill Cream at his trial for murder in November 1892.

Jeff

I don't often disagree with Jeff, but there was no appeal for Deeming, the Privy Council, denied leave.

[GUT]

There is a possibility, one I'm still looking into that Geoghegan's relative was Deemings priest on death row.

[Mayerling]

That is a real coincidence is it not Jeff, to defend 3 suspects.

Steve

Yes Steve it is. Deeming (by the way) at that appeal hearings had Geoghegan assisted by a young and coming Edward Marshall Hall. See the biography of the latter by Edward Marjoribanks.

Geoghegan had a very promising career at the Bar in the 1880s to early 1890s, being considered extremely eloquent. He was also connected to the trial of Israel Lipski, as the junior barrister in the defense of that defendant. His father was a prominent (in that period) antiquarian and poet ("The Monks of Kilcrae" was one of his poems) who died in 1889. However, Geoghegan took to drink, because when he lost a case (especially capital ones) he would feel guilty about the fates of his clients. He died in 1902 by what was called at the time, "misadventure": he had taken an overdose of a sedative (possibly seconal) and died as a result, but there was a suspicion that the overdose was more suicidal.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

There is a possibility, one I'm still looking into that Geoghegan's relative was Deemings priest on death row.

Hi Geoff,

I wrote an essay on Deeming back in the late 1970s that was only published a decade later. It was called "The Original Suspect", which I now realize was a misnomer (how about Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski, Bury, Osrog, Leather Apron, etc.?). Part of it I later published seperately in "The Criminologists" and the part I published described the torturous path "poor Freddy" Deeming and his counsel in Australia (guess which Prime Minister of Australia was his barrister) had to follow to reverse the death sentence upheld in Victoria's court system in 1892.

Apparently Deeming and his counsel were hoping that the Privy Counsel would grant a retrial because of questions regarding additional proof of insanity in Deeming's family, and that the trial court had not granted enough time for the submission of said information in a timely fasion before the trial and verdict. Of course this ignored the distances the information had to travel from Ashby-de-la-Zouch in England to Melbourne in 1892, but it strikes one now (who doesn't bother to read up on what Freddy did to wives and kids) as slightly unfair. For some reason the legal journals kept pushing the definitive precedent that Deeming's counsel should use as the case of Regina v. Riel (1885) from Canada, which was the attempt to use an insanity defense in the treason/murder trial of the Metis leader (and founder of Manitoba and Saskatchewan) Louis Riel, who led a revolt in 1884-85 (plus an earlier one in 1870). Poor Louis (who I do sympathize with a bit, as part of his life was useful, as opposed to crooked Freddy) had insanity in the record (he'd been in some mental institutions while in the U.S.) but the Privy Counsel ruled against Louis' appeal here. So Louis hanged (and French Canada turned into a Liberal Party bastion from 1887 to 1980 for the most part). I suspect that everyone pushed the insanity appeal of Riel because it seemed the only logical one for Deeming to follow. Actually it was a will-of-the-wisp, as Deeming's solicitor thought Deeming had knowledge of some of the Whitechapel Murders, and thought this would make the Privy Counsel seriously consider reducing sentence to try to solve the older crimes.

I had found a complete set of copies of the decisions of the Privy Counsel in the library of the law school I attended from 1975 to 1978. He did have an appeal, and I found about six or so cases (including one involving another murder in Australia twenty years earlier) where a kind of judicial minuet was being created because the Privy Counsel (on the one hand) found legitimate grounds for dismissing the death sentences and interfering with the colonial systems, but (on the other hand) felt it unfair to do this around the British Empire because those systems were entitled to expand and grow on their own. So the Privy Counsel would uphold the decision, but point out the possible error that had been committed in the trial stages, and lightly suggest that the colonial courts of appeal reduce sentences to life imprison or such. It worked (with increasing torturous logic) until Deeming showed up.

I suspect he was so universally hated that the Privy Counsel welcomed the clearsighted (but questionable precedent) of one of England's greatest Lord Chancellors (who wrote the decision) Lord Halsbury. Halsbury believed in simple law, not minuets or dances with suggestions. He found a case he claimed on target to dismiss the appeal. It was dismissed and Deeming hanged. However, the case he used for his precedent (his only precedent) had nothing to do with homicides or serial killers. It had to do with the disbarment of a crooked solicitor in one of the islands of the Caribbean. I had mixed feelings but after going through the entire prior series of decisions, I had to thank (mentally) "M'lud" for his rational coming to the point on this idiotic matter.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

There is a possibility, one I'm still looking into that Geoghegan's relative was Deemings priest on death row.

That would prove interesting.

[Mayerling]

Geoghegan's father's name was "Arthur Gerald Geoghegan". I had forgotten to put it down before.

[GUT]

Geoghegan's father's name was "Arthur Gerald Geoghegan". I had forgotten to put it down before.

Thanks Jeff that may help me.

I know there was another minister who he made Executor of his will, but there was another who filled in at times who I suspect may have been a relative.

[GUT]

On the connection to three suspects, if Marshall Hall had acted for the same three (a few years later) we'd have said "naturally".

[Mayerling]

On the connection to three suspects, if Marshall Hall had acted for the same three (a few years later) we'd have said "naturally".

Oh must definitely - but that doesn't mean he'd have gotten acquittals for them. He did win acquittals for some (like Robert Wood of the "Camden Town Murders", and Harold Greenwood, and Madame Fahmy) but he also failed to save John Bennett, Frederick Seddon, George Joseph Smith, and Lieutenant Holt. He could do miracles in court, but needed the right materials to build up sound arguments. Some of the above did not really present him with any.

Jeff

[GUT]

Oh must definitely - but that doesn't mean he'd have gotten acquittals for them. He did win acquittals for some (like Robert Wood of the "Camden Town Murders", and Harold Greenwood, and Madame Fahmy) but he also failed to save John Bennett, Frederick Seddon, George Joseph Smith, and Lieutenant Holt. He could do miracles in court, but needed the right materials to build up sound arguments. Some of the above did not really present him with any.

Jeff

But one suspects Geoghegan must have been no slouch either and thus acting for the three really shouldn't be a surprise.

[Pierre]

Pierre

I did not ask for a source I wished for, such a statement is palpably untrue!

By posting "YES" it was implied that there was a source which PROVED the Juwes was the incorrect reading of the word.

While the reply did not state "Judges" was the correct reading, the previous two sentences including the question, leave this in little doubt.

I simply asked if such a source existed.
In addition I gave a specific example, as while I am prepared to listen to an argument suggesting the word could have been Judges rather than Juwes; I could see nothing else which could PROVE that "Judges" was the conclusive answer.
The specific example I asked about was not something I wished for; given I do not believe the GSG has anything to do with the murders why would I wish for such?

I had hoped that maybe we would be enlighten, if not on the content of any alleged data source which may have established the high degree of probability for this conclusion the post suggested, then at least on the type of document?

The rest of the post is pointless attack on a child’s culture, which is then extrapolated upon to apply to others. Please tell me which adult expects to get a wish from Santa?

All this to cover a sweeping statement which was was made,- "Yes", that a data source had been found which proved the reading of "Juwes" was incorrect, which it appears cannot or will not be backed up.

regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

OK, it seems that you systematically want to misunderstand me. You wrote yourself in post 701:

"Are you saying you have a document signed which says "I wrote the GSG" ?

I mean in plain English, does it say "I did it", no metaphors, no code. Just I wrote the GSG and it means this!"

This is your wishful post, Steve, where you wish for a specific content in a source not produced in the past.

Here, you do not ask me for any source with any content, but you specifically ask for a source with this - and nothing but this - content.

By doing so you:

1. Impose your own wish on the past
2. Want to exclusively define what a "ground breaking" source should be allowed to be
3. Give one, and only one, alternative
4. Exclude all other possible sources

And then you say (and this is funny I think!):

If you have such a document, then I see no reason not to name, you are not saying he is the killer, he is!!

No. If you had that document it could be a source with a tendency or a forgery. Any source that you have with a confession, where a person gives his own name, is with the highest probability connected to a strong tendency and therefore false. We now this from this case (and others), when people wanted to confess to the Whitechapel murders but none of them was convicted for having performed the murders. Please do take this into consideration, Steve.

Another problem is of course that that type of source - with your wishful content - could have been valid and reliable in another interesting way:

Someone might have written the GSG, and confessed to it, but wasn´t the killer.

So when you say "If you have such a document, then I see no reason not to name, you are not saying he is the killer, he is!!" you are obviously totally wrong.

So you see, it is not that simple. Things does not happen like that in history.

Steve - if the killer, whoever he might have been, wanted to confess or wanted to produce sources where he gave clues to the police and to other important people, do you think he would have been so stupid as to give them his real name and address?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

OK, it seems that you systematically want to misunderstand me. You wrote yourself in post 701:

"Are you saying you have a document signed which says "I wrote the GSG" ?

I mean in plain English, does it say "I did it", no metaphors, no code. Just I wrote the GSG and it means this!"

This is your wishful post, Steve, where you wish for a specific content in a source not produced in the past.

Here, you do not ask me for any source with any content, but you specifically ask for a source with this - and nothing but this - content.

By doing so you:

1. Impose your own wish on the past
2. Want to exclusively to define what a "ground breaking" source can be
3. Give one, and only one, alternative for a "ground breaking" source
4. Exclude all other possible sources

Pierre,

Once again you write a post where quotes are given individually, by that I mean not in relationship to what is said before or after.

I offered an example, no more.

I have made it perfectly clear in post 733, the background to the question, and what it meant?


If no such source existed ( which of course it did not) the answer should have been a short no surely

In post 725 I suggested various answers you may have given, which would have covered any of the points you make above.


You however have chosen to ignore all of that and continue to pound on about a specific question, which could have been answered as in post 725, and to avoid discussing the real issue:

That being, that a claim was made by the answer of "YES" that a document had been found which proved the correct reading of the word in the GSG.

That is indeed a ground breaking claim, this is something now completely ignored.

!

And then you say (and this is funny I think!):



No. If you had that document it could be a source with a tendency or a forgery. Any source that you have with a confession, where a person gives his own name, is with the highest probability connected to a strong tendency or false. We now this from the case, since some people wanted to confess to the Whitechapel murders but none of them was convicted for having performed the murders. Please do take this into consideration, Steve.

Yes Pierre that is very true.

However the reply of "Yes" to the suggestion that a document had been found, which proved the correct reading of the GSG, was very clear.

One therefore assumes that before answering "yes" an historian would have analysed any document or confession and decided if they were authentic.
If not the reply of "yes" would be incorrect and misleading would it not?

As you say confessions are often not be trusted, However is the confession you have claimed to have any different?

Another problem is of course that that type of source - with your wishful content - could have been valid and reliable. Someone might have written the GSG but wasn´t the killer. So when you say "If you have such a document, then I see no reason not to name, you are not saying he is the killer, he is!!" you are obviously totally wrong.

That statement is based on the theory that the Writer of the GSG was the killer, a idea indeed supported by you, something which I however do not believe.

Therefore if you still hold to that belief the question is fair and reasonable, if your view has changed what you say above will of course apply.



Regards



Steve

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

I wish to get this back on track.

You have implied, that you have a source or sources that say your reading of the GSG word as Judges is correct. At least I assume that is what the reply of "yes" was meant to convey.

(If that was not the intended meaning what follows should be ignored as it will be pointless.)

May I clarify:

1. Do these sources prove that point? ( I would suggest that is highly unlikely, but I could be wrong)

2. Do these sources suggest the reading of "judges" over "juwes" is probably, if so is that a high, medium or low probability?


3 Do these sources suggest the reading of "judges" over "juwes" is possible rather than probable.

4. Are these conclusions drawn from information on the actually writing know as the GSG?

or

Are they drawn from events in the life of a particular person.

Regards

steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383618]

Pierre,

I wish to get this back on track.

Thanks Steve. I appreciate that.

You have implied, that you have a source or sources that say your reading of the GSG word as Judges is correct. At least I assume that is what the reply of "yes" was meant to convey.

(If that was not the intended meaning what follows should be ignored as it will be pointless.)

May I clarify:

1. Do these sources prove that point? ( I would suggest that is highly unlikely, but I could be wrong)

From a historical perspective the evidence is strong.

Let me discuss with you what I mean by that statement. If you for instance were an historian and worked with a research question about, say T, and the question was "Who was T?" and you found sources from the time when T lived who had the name of T on it and also other data that described the characteristics of T, you would say that "This is T" and go by that hypothesis to build your own theory about T. But for every source you would be suspicious and you would first of all perform source criticism on the sources. This suspicion and the source criticism would mean that you would KNOW the value of the sources, the hypotheses and your theory. So when people like me for instance would ask you "Do your sources prove that it is T?" you would say that "from a historical perspective the evidence is strong, since within the field of history you do not work with the concept of "proof". Proof is used in the juridical system and NOT in the academic history system. Instead, we use the word "evidence". But then, since you would work as a forensic historian, you would also know that if you had a special source, which you could add to the sources you have, then people like me would accept your evidence and say that you have proof. So a task would be to find that source!

I hope you understand how academic history works when I try to explain this, Steve, and I say this will all due respect.

2. Do these sources suggest the reading of "judges" over "juwes" is probably, if so is that a high, medium or low probability?

They do. And the probability is high. Again, I say this from a historical perspective. This perspective is nothing that I try to hide behind to say strange things or to make up stories, Steve. It is my duty as a historian to be honest with the evidence. Yes, the probability is high. The evidence is very specific.

3 Do these sources suggest the reading of "judges" over "juwes" is possible rather than probable.

This reading is both possible and probable. For a historian, first comes the possibility, then comes the probability. But there is one important thing that I would like to add to your question. The sources are also explanatory. If you would have such sources in your own theory about T, that would mean that the sources give an explanation not only for one hypothesis in your own theory, but for many or all. It also means that the explanatory sources give a very solid explanation for the different points in time in the time period you are examining.

4. Are these conclusions drawn from information on the actually writing know as the GSG?

or

Are they drawn from events in the life of a particular person.

Regards

steve

All the information known to us about the GSG is public. There is no unknown "information", since we would have known if there were any. So that is no news - and nothing to wish for!

To be able to explain the GSG you need explanatory data in sources from the lives of people in the past. And you need several independent sources.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Steve - if the killer, whoever he might have been, wanted to confess or wanted to produce sources where he gave clues to the police and to other important people, do you think he would have been so stupid as to give them his real name and address?

Ah, metaphorical language alert!

I recall you saying the same type of thing about the GOGMAGOG letter, Pierre, and we all know how that ended up.