Double event victims - Throat wounds

[GUT]

When I said codified I don't mean like a Napoleon 1804 system or continental system, I was referring to the process that when they created the Australian law from the original English law, of editing out all the obsolete dead wood as it were, and creating a leaner fitter 'codex', ( do you have laws concerning anachronisms like Frankelmoin ?) it was something I thought had happened to some degree with the former colonies/territories. I must have become somewhat confused. Perhaps I should have found out first, as it has side tracked things somewhat.

The point was, and also why i was asking about Blackstone is that I am trying to assess how familiar you would be with the workings of law at the time of the murders, as Uk law professionals have told me this is really the realm of the legal historian.



Ok, the point I was making concerns the giving of evidence, not necessarily the actual evidence itself



There was no possible fix for the specific problem, the new statute just prevented the same thing happening again. These circumstances only apply to the evidence in a specific scenario that I believed occurred on Buck's-row and afterwards at the Nichols inquest, which as I've mentioned this elsewhere but which you may have missed, is that Cross killed Nichols after he sent Paul to find a policeman, Cross then arrived at the inquest and gives testimony un-summoned and untested, however strangely it is actually Paul who is the problem - when I'm feeling controversial I call him Robert 'the hot potato' Paul

The trial can still go ahead in any one else's version, I'm not making a blanket claim about the murders themselves or the killer



Ok, I see your point and I apologise I was rather unfair, but you originally claimed that they was no chance of a case being made against anyone for any of the murders, Well they certainly tried with Sadler, that's a historical fact. At the time they took people to trial on quite flimsy evidence - I opened a thread recently on the seafaring suspect loosely connected to the Buck's-row murder , as I had identified a possible candidate, a man called Charles Hammond;- the case collapsed when the second prosecution witness claimed the man in the dock was not there at the time of the offence - it seemed odd that it ever reached trial.



Perhaps this was the wrong place and time to bring this all up as i'm still looking at the situation. A perspective that has developed in ripperology, that the murders are to be looked at as a pure unadulterated historical event by the modern researchers. - like recording the result of an experiment, however I believe that this is a false perspective, the information is being processed with the view of bring about a prosecution for the murders. The raw information carries this bias already, in short they want this experiment to have a particular out come - conviction

This actually provides some explanations for some aspects of the case that previously have being viewed purely as questions of witness validity.

G'day Mr Lucky


OK sort of follow most of that.

And I am sorry if I came across as a cranky old "B" but sometimes I most certainly am.

My comment about no chance of bringing anyone to trial was simply because by now they are all dead.

Re Cross at the inquest you said above

Cross then arrived at the inquest and gives testimony un-summoned and untested,

I am certainly not persuaded that he was not summoned and am reasonably sure [though not certain] that would nor have made any difference, and I am confident he would have been tested, perhaps not very effectively, if by no one else then by the coroner.

And yes we have culled out old laws, as have most if not all Common Law countries, but that is a far cry from being a codified system.

[Michael W Richards]

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)

Im interested to know what Canonical victims you believe showed evidence that their throats were "stabbed". Since you specifically note the Double Event victims I am curious as to where you may have read or heard that Elizabeth Stride had anything but a single slice wound.

From the PM:"There was a clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards. The arteries and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through. The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured. From this is was evident that the hemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery."

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

Gee Mr Lucky, you actually said "Firstly isn't your legal system fully codified?" so maybe you need to check, first and legal systems rae either fully codfied or common law that simple.

When I said codified I don't mean like a Napoleon 1804 system or continental system, I was referring to the process that when they created the Australian law from the original English law, of editing out all the obsolete dead wood as it were, and creating a leaner fitter 'codex', ( do you have laws concerning anachronisms like Frankelmoin ?) it was something I thought had happened to some degree with the former colonies/territories. I must have become somewhat confused. Perhaps I should have found out first, as it has side tracked things somewhat.

The point was, and also why i was asking about Blackstone is that I am trying to assess how familiar you would be with the workings of law at the time of the murders, as Uk law professionals have told me this is really the realm of the legal historian.

There is still a difference between evidence at an inquest and evidence at a trial.

Ok, the point I was making concerns the giving of evidence, not necessarily the actual evidence itself

So where is this reconciliation that would now make a trial possible.

There was no possible fix for the specific problem, the new statute just prevented the same thing happening again. These circumstances only apply to the evidence in a specific scenario that I believed occurred on Buck's-row and afterwards at the Nichols inquest, which as I've mentioned this elsewhere but which you may have missed, is that Cross killed Nichols after he sent Paul to find a policeman, Cross then arrived at the inquest and gives testimony un-summoned and untested, however strangely it is actually Paul who is the problem - when I'm feeling controversial I call him Robert 'the hot potato' Paul

The trial can still go ahead in any one else's version, I'm not making a blanket claim about the murders themselves or the killer

Ans re the victims you refer to I have had all sorts of answers to the same issue on these boards when people merely say the Whitechapel Murders, I wanted to clarify your position, nothing at all to do with a deficit in my knowledge, more to do with a deficit n other people's knowledge so t becomes necessary to check what people actually mean, just as the other day someone asked me what I was referring to re the C5.

Ok, I see your point and I apologise I was rather unfair, but you originally claimed that they was no chance of a case being made against anyone for any of the murders, Well they certainly tried with Sadler, that's a historical fact. At the time they took people to trial on quite flimsy evidence - I opened a thread recently on the seafaring suspect loosely connected to the Buck's-row murder , as I had identified a possible candidate, a man called Charles Hammond;- the case collapsed when the second prosecution witness claimed the man in the dock was not there at the time of the offence - it seemed odd that it ever reached trial.

Sorry I misunderstood your point about the statute. But you are the one who is spouting on about a trial not being able to be held, but won't tell us why.

Perhaps this was the wrong place and time to bring this all up as i'm still looking at the situation. A perspective that has developed in ripperology, that the murders are to be looked at as a pure unadulterated historical event by the modern researchers. - like recording the result of an experiment, however I believe that this is a false perspective, the information is being processed with the view of bring about a prosecution for the murders. The raw information carries this bias already, in short they want this experiment to have a particular out come - conviction

This actually provides some explanations for some aspects of the case that previously have being viewed purely as questions of witness validity.

[GUT]

Gee Mr Lucky, you actually said "Firstly isn't your legal system fully codified?" so maybe you need to check, first and legal systems rae either fully codfied or common law that simple.

You said

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.

I said

There is still a difference between evidence at an inquest and evidence at a trial.

Your reply

? I haven't made such a claim, you are attempting to correct something I haven't said

So where is this reconciliation that would now make a trial possible.

And re Blackstone that is my precise point, yes I know it, yes I am familiar with it, but no I do not claim to be an expert in it "Blackstone's Laws of England"

Ans re the victims you refer to I have had all sorts of answers to the same issue on these boards when people merely say the Whitechapel Murders, I wanted to clarify your position, nothing at all to do with a deficit in my knowledge, more to do with a deficit n other people's knowledge so t becomes necessary to check what people actually mean, just as the other day someone asked me what I was referring to re the C5.

Sorry I misunderstood your point about the statute. But you are the one who is spouting on about a trial not being able to be held, but won't tell us why.

[Mr Lucky]

Ummmmmm No we are and always have been a co0mmon law country.

I have asked you a simple polite question - I asked if your legal system was codified - clearly I already know its based on common law as I wouldn't ask if you refer to Blackstone/et al otherwise.

So why you need to produce a response like that for I have no idea

I am familiar with how trials processed in years gone by, indeed have studied as part of my degree a number of semesters of the history of law.

Since finishing studying I have probably needed to go back to Blackstone maybe 5 times, though my chamber's library for some unknown reason maintains it.

5 times in a twenty year career doesn't make you familiar with anything.

There is still a difference between evidence at an inquest and evidence at a trial.

? I haven't made such a claim, you are attempting to correct something I haven't said

No sport two pages ago I tried to clarfy which murders you were talking about some on these boards refer to the Whitechapel murders and mean the C5 others mean the murders contained in the police file, yet others seem to have various sub-sets.

No 'sport', it's all there in post 20,21,22 and 23. You had no idea who the Whitechapel murder victims were.
Post 20 -23

Lucky -- I am one of the few who thinks all the (non-torso) Whitechapel murders were committed by the same individual.
GUT - Over what time period?
Lucky - from Smith to Coles, excluding the torso
GUT - And only those listed on casebook or all unsolved murders in that time span? And only those involving a knife?
Lucky - The 'Whitechapel murder file' is the name given to the 11 unsolved murders of Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, McKenzie, Mylett, Coles and the Pinchin street torso. I'm only considering the first ten on this list. Not all these are knife murders, technically Smith was a 'blunt instrument' (personally I think it was a blunt knife) and Mylett was strangled/garrotted

You want to drop the attitude, and get your 'ripper' book out and read it a second time.

So how about stop trying to be clever and tell us what statute it is that you think would make a trial an impossibility.

Ok, what you've done here is change the argument - I have claimed the problem was remedied by statute in the twentieth century. I have not said that there is statute that "would make the trial an impossibility."

Oh and another thing, I don't publish my research on the internet simply because the pompous and disingenuous demand it.

[GUT]

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.

Ummmmmm No we are and always have been a co0mmon law country.

I am familiar with how trials processed in years gone by, indeed have studied as part of my degree a number of semesters of the history of law.

Since finishing studying I have probably needed to go back to Blackstone maybe 5 times, though my chamber's library for some unknown reason maintains it.

There is still a difference between evidence at an inquest and evidence at a trial.

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.

No sport two pages ago I tried to clarfy which murders you were talking about some on these boards refer to the Whitechapel murders and mean the C5 others mean the murders contained in the police file, yet others seem to have various sub-sets.

So how about stop trying to be clever and tell us what statute it is that you think would make a trial an impossibility.

[Wickerman]

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

Yes, that appeared to me to be what you were suggesting. You did mention Leather Apron, and I presumed you meant that if Leather Apron is the suspect, and the public were convinced of this then the suspect could not receive a fair trial in the British Isles.
That is how it came across to me, so sorry if I misunderstood.

[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.

[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]

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]

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)

[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.

[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.

[Scott Nelson]

But, didn't Cross and Paul leave together?

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

[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)