Interpreting Conflicting Evidence

[GregBaron]

On whose authority?

Y

es. Dr. W.J. Mickle forbade the police from putting Isenschmid into an identity parade before Mrs. Long and Mrs. Fiddymont and her companions.

Override? That would be difficult since the police gave Isenschmid into the custody of the Islington Workhouse infirmary and later Grove Hall lunatic asylum. They were then in charge until such time as the doctors saw fit to allow an identification.

Yes, I think you pointed this out to me before Lynn. I still find it astonishing. I can hear it now...

"Sorry doctor, we have reason to believe your patient is a homicidal maniac."

"Oh now, don't concern yourself with that officers, he's under our jurisdiction now."

"Oh Ok Doctor, bye now."

I suppose it might be interesting to plot a histograph (I made up that word) of law enforcement authority vs. medical authority and see how the curve progressed...it might perhaps differ in the UK vs. US as well.... perhaps I've watched too many detective shows but it seems in the 20th century if cops were hot on someone's trail medical authorities would step aside to let them do their work.............perhaps there's an expert on our boards somewhere......?.....just another confounding aspect of this perplexing case....

Greg

[lynn cates]

medical

Hello Greg. Expert? Well, Simon Wood knows a good deal about such things. Perhaps he could explain the exact particulars a bit better.

But the procedure seems the same today. A person under psychiatric observation is not given up to the law nor his/her health compromised whilst under the doctor's care.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Doctor then lawyer then cop...

But the procedure seems the same today. A person under psychiatric observation is not given up to the law nor his/her health compromised whilst under the doctor's care.

Yes Lynn, this I understand but the operative phrase is whilst under the doctor's care. So at some point the Doctor's have made a diagnosis, prescribed treatment and moved on. At this juncture I would think law enforcement could perform its duties. Now, in this case, as I believe you've suggested, the double event threw them off the chase of JI. I still find this grossly negligent. Perhaps I'm expecting too much?, especially in 1888.....!

Greg

[lynn cates]

sequel

Hello Greg. I would very much, too, like to ascertain what happened AFTER September 19. There are 2 news reports I've seen. One has him declared harmless with an imminent release (he was neither harmless nor was he released until about a year later). The other says his brother vouched for him. Not likely as Mary placed all his relatives in Switzerland.

But what DID actually happen? I do know he was sent along to Banstead.

Of course, if I were SY, I'd likely have made the exact same assumption when the "Double Event" occurred.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

For the Ripper to have scouted out the crime scenes in advance, he would have to know who he would find on a particular night and that can only have been random chance. If we read the last sightings of the women, their behaviour patterns were not pre-ordained. There were thousands of prostitutes and there must have been hundreds of outdoor locations where they took their clients.
The simple explanation is that he went where they took him. If he didn’t feel safe to proceed, then he could have aborted – muttered an apology and scarpered.
I would be willing to bet that he did this several times.
All the murder scenes were risky – Berner Street perhaps the most risky surely.

On the more on topic subject of conflicting evidence – I find the timing of the discovery of the Goulston Street Graffiti and apron odd. I think it was probably there all along and PC Long was wrong.

Regarding an Isenschmid identification – Abberline was angling to have the doctor overruled when the double event occurred and effectively exonerated the mouth frothing knuckle dragging obvious loony – not that such a conspicuous suspect held water anyway.

I mentioned in another thread that I lived on the site of Grove Hall (Wrexham Road) for about ten years. Through global positioning I worked out that Isenschmid’s padded cell was bang in the middle of my front room.

[Trevor Marriott]

Y

Yes, I think you pointed this out to me before Lynn. I still find it astonishing. I can hear it now...

"Sorry doctor, we have reason to believe your patient is a homicidal maniac."

"Oh now, don't concern yourself with that officers, he's under our jurisdiction now."

"Oh Ok Doctor, bye now."

I suppose it might be interesting to plot a histograph (I made up that word) of law enforcement authority vs. medical authority and see how the curve progressed...it might perhaps differ in the UK vs. US as well.... perhaps I've watched too many detective shows but it seems in the 20th century if cops were hot on someone's trail medical authorities would step aside to let them do their work.............perhaps there's an expert on our boards somewhere......?.....just another confounding aspect of this perplexing case....

Greg

The current stance is that the police are not empowered to detain or interview a person who it is beleived suffering from a mental health issue unless he is deemed fit to be detained and by suitably qualified medical personell.

In effect if a man was arrested and thought to be suffering from a mental health issue. Initillay a police doctor would examine that person then if he felt there was a serious mental health issue he could instigate a full mental health assessment which would be carried out at a police station by two mental health doctors who could either deem that person fit to be detained and interviewed or they could issue an order under the mental healt act for that person to be taken and detained at a place of safety i.e a mental health ward at a local hospital.

At no time can the police interview a person in custody if it is beleived there are mental health issues. If they did they any evidence obtained or any admissions made would be inadmissable.

[Lechmere]

But surely the Police didn't want to interrogate him so much as have a witness ID him.

[Trevor Marriott]

But surely the Police didn't want to interrogate him so much as have a witness ID him.

The police wouldnt be able to do anything with him. I cannot speak for how they operated in 1888. But it would seem that the police were under restrictions given the issues with Ischensmidt.

It may have been the case that consent from the suspect would have been required. If this were a factor It brings into question "again" the marginlia and the seaside home.

Could the police without arrest simply drag someone off the street or from their house or from a hospital and carted that person 80 miles to Brighton ?

[lynn cates]

corroboration

Hello Lechmere.

"Abberline was angling to have the doctor overruled when the double event occurred"

I had not heard that one. Can you point me to the corroboration of that?

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Certainly...
From Abberline’s Special Report of 19th September 1888.
‘He is now confined in the Bow Infirmary Asylum Fairfield Road and Dr. Mickle has been seen with a view to arrange for Mrs. Fiddymont and other witnesses to see him, but the doctor thinks this cannot be done at present with safety to his patient. As time is of the greatest importance in this case, not only with regard to the question of identity, but also for the purpose of allaying the strong public feeling that exists, I would respectfully suggest that either the Chief Surgeon, or one of the Div. Surgeons may be requested to see Dr. Mickle the resident medical officer to make oif possible some arrangement for the witnesses to see Iscenschmid.’

[lynn cates]

overruled

Hello Lechmere. Thanks. Yes, that is in "The Ultimate Companion." I suppose I did not equate a request for information with an attempt to overrule.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Still perplexed..!

Following the arrest of Jacob Isenschmidt, another parade was intended as soon as he was deemed to be in a satisfactory mental condition to participate[2] . Inspector Frederick Abberline stated in a report that Isenschmidt was "identical with the man seen in Prince Albert P.H."[3] It is not clear whether this identity parade ever went ahead.

Thanks Trevor and others for your input. I can understand preventing JI's meeting with officials until he was diagnosed. But wasn't he eventually released? Certainly at this point, double event or not, Abberline and company should have put him in the identity parade (lineup). The statement above implies it may have happened? Maybe it did without a positive ID?

Lynn, you're the man here, have all possible research angles been exhausted?

Greg

[lynn cates]

archives

Hello Greg. He was not released for over a year.

I am trying desperately to find if there is an archive which houses Dr. Mickel's works. I did receive a bit of information from the London Royal College of Physicians. But they do not have his archived works.

He eventually practiced in Toronto. I even searched there. Any ideas?

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

Phil probably sides with the doctor’s TOD which is certainly the prudent choice; unfortunately, that doesn’t make it correct.

Of course you're correct here, Greg, because that would only get us into another situation of conflicting evidence: that of John Richardson and Dr Phillips.

All the best,
Frank

[Lechmere]

Lynn I'll 'check out' the Tower Hamlets Local History Library. I have to go there to check something else (Toppy related - isn't that exciting) and I'll probably go sometime next week. I was going to go this afternoon but it's shut!
I very much doubt there is anything. But isn't there a series of pictures of Isenschmidt from some sanitorium or another?