Tamworth Herald 26th July 1890

[robhouse]

Hi Rob

Not found anything yet in the British press about the arrest. Three or four local papers carried the disclaimer. One (Freeman's Journal) added that the arrest story was sent out by Dalziel's Agency. This must be the chap :



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davison...ziel_of_Wooler

Good work Robert. Keep looking. So, do you think that means that Dalziel's Agency broke the story and it was picked up by other papers? Was it a sort of AP? I am not too clear on how such an agency worked.

RH

[Robert]

Hi Rob

Not found anything yet in the British press about the arrest. Three or four local papers carried the disclaimer. One (Freeman's Journal) added that the arrest story was sent out by Dalziel's Agency. This must be the chap :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davison_Dalziel,_1st_Baron_Dalziel_of_Wooler

[Trevor Marriott]

To repeat, what I'm asking is whether Mr Marriott can provide evidence of a case where a person who would otherwise have been considered sane (according to the criteria of the time, obviously), but was committed to an asylum by a doctor because the police suspected (but could not prove) he had committed a crime.

We are not talking about any old crime we are talking serious crime here i.e serial killings of the most horrific kind which at the time may have been considered by the police likely to re occur if not stopped.

Crimes which the police clearly did not want to re-occur and so what better way to prevent further crimes than to take out of circulation someone who you have positive evidence against. Evidence which used in conjunction with all the other insane factors surrounding that persons incarceration would be more than enough for him to be professionally assessed as being mad and locked away.

After all as I said previous look at the two things which eventually got him certified clearly not to difficult a decision for a doctor.

Plus the fact if a doctor was told all about Kosminski and his ripper connection would any doctor want to release him and maybe allow him to kill again and them have that persons murder on their conscience.

Its a much bigger picture than you can ever imagine

[robhouse]

Does anyone have anything to say about the Tamworth Herald article?

I had never seen it before, but it does seem to suggest that there was a general rumor going around that Jack the Ripper had been "arrested" in July 1890. This is a new piece of information, since the only other mention of this that I have seen is the "woman from Halifax" story printed in American papers. It is interesting that the police not only denied the truth of the rumor, but that the article uses the phrase "The Press Association is authorised to state..." which suggests that the Police were trying to control how the story played out in the press.

I wonder if there might be other, more substantial articles in other papers around the same time. (apart from the Edinburgh one)

Rob H

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Mac.

"Why was Tommy Cutbush, who did no more than stab some poor lass around the arse region, which is debatable as his solicitor felt there were good grounds for his innocence, sent to England's high security prison for dangerous, homicidal lunatics; while Aaron Kosminski, aka Jack the Ripper, was allowed to lounge around in a local asylum?

Something's not right there."

You, good sir, are a master of understatement.

Yes, Lynn, and big up to FMac.

In the wonderful world of Ripperology this rates very high on the weirdness scale. The sentence that Cutbush received when compared with his South London neighbour Collicott who got a slap on the wrist for exactly the same offence beggars belief.

[Monty]

Exactly its known as "The Ways and Means Act"

To confirm, this isn't actually an act but rather a colloquialism used within the force for obscure acts which can be used to justify arrest or detention, such as the Lunacy act I cited from the Police Code.

Monty

[Chris]

11. Persons suffering from delirium tremens who are violent or dangerous may be regarded as insane.

The whole post by Monty is one page back.

To repeat, what I'm asking is whether Mr Marriott can provide evidence of a case where a person who would otherwise have been considered sane (according to the criteria of the time, obviously), but was committed to an asylum by a doctor because the police suspected (but could not prove) he had committed a crime.

[Sox]

Frankly, this stuff gets more and more nonsensical.

You surely realise that a "suggestion" that someone was the Ripper would not remotely justify a doctor certifying him as insane and having him sent to an asylum. The idea is ridiculous.

As for the idea of a doctor certifying someone on the basis of a police statement that "We know he is the killer ... but we have no evidence", it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that precisely this police attitude has resulted in so many miscarriages of justice - though never by false imprisonment in a lunatic asylum, as far as I am aware!

I'll ask for a third time - can you give us any evidence that the police have ever persuaded a doctor to certify someone who otherwise appeared sane, on the basis that he was suspected of having committed a crime? Let's have some concrete data, please, if there are any.

11. Persons suffering from delirium tremens who are violent or dangerous may be regarded as insane.

The whole post by Monty is one page back.

[Chris]

Surely if there had been any suggestion of him being the ripper during that period the doctors would not have released him especially if the police had said "We know he is the killer because he has been identified but we have no evidence"

Frankly, this stuff gets more and more nonsensical.

You surely realise that a "suggestion" that someone was the Ripper would not remotely justify a doctor certifying him as insane and having him sent to an asylum. The idea is ridiculous.

As for the idea of a doctor certifying someone on the basis of a police statement that "We know he is the killer ... but we have no evidence", it would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that precisely this police attitude has resulted in so many miscarriages of justice - though never by false imprisonment in a lunatic asylum, as far as I am aware!

I'll ask for a third time - can you give us any evidence that the police have ever persuaded a doctor to certify someone who otherwise appeared sane, on the basis that he was suspected of having committed a crime? Let's have some concrete data, please, if there are any.

[lynn cates]

taken off the street

Hello Neil. Thanks for posting that.

Looks like, if a person were really a lunatic, he could be taken off the street at any time.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Trevor. Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Police Code

**Insanity.-1. Every person is presumed to be sane, and responsible for his acts, until the contrary is proved on his behalf.
**2. No act is a crime if the person who does it is, at the time when it is done, prevented by any mental disease, from
***(a) Knowing the nature and quality of his act.
***(b) Knowing that the act was unlawful.
***(c) Controlling his own conduct. (See LUNATICS.)
**3. At the same time police must be on their guard against feigned insanity. It can often be detected by surprise visits and close observation.

**Lunatics.—The following provisions of the Lunacy Act, 1890, as amended by the Lunacy Act, 1891, should be known and acted upon by police :-
**1. Every constable, relieving officer and overseer who has knowledge that any person who is not a pauper, and not wandering at large, is deemed to be a lunatic, and is not under proper care and control, or is cruelly treated or neglected by any relative or other person having the care or charge of him, shall, within three days after obtaining such knowledge, give information thereof upon oath to a Justice.
**2. Any Justice upon information on oath of any person that a person not a pauper, and not wandering at large, is deemed to be a lunatic, and is not under proper care and control, or is cruelly treated or neglected, shall direct two medical practitioners to visit and examine the alleged lunatic, and certify as to his mental state.
**3. If the Justice, upon the certificates of the medical practitioners, is satisfied that the alleged lunatic is a lunatic, and is not under proper care and control, or is cruelly treated or neglected, he may direct the lunatic to be received and detained in an institution for lunatics to which if a pauper he might be sent, and the constable, relieving officer, or overseer upon whose information the order has been made, must forthwith convey the lunatic to the institution.
**4. Every constable, relieving officer and overseer who has knowledge that any person (whether a pauper or not) wandering at large within the district or parish of the constable, relieving officer, or overseer, is deemed to be a lunatic, must immediately apprehend and take the alleged lunatic, or cause him to be apprehended and taken, before a Justice.
**5. Any Justice upon the information on oath of any person that a person wandering at large within the limits of his jurisdiction is deemed to be a lunatic may require a constable, relieving officer, or overseer of the district where the alleged lunatic is, to apprehend him and bring him before the Justice making the order.
**6. The justice before whom a pauper alleged to be a lunatic or an alleged lunatic wandering at large is brought shall call in a medical practitioner, and shall examine the alleged lunatic, and make such inquiries as he thinks advisable and, if satisfied in the first mentioned case that the alleged lunatic is a lunatic and a proper person to be detained, and, in the secondly mentioned case that the alleged lunatic is a lunatic and was wandering at large, and is a proper person to be detained, and if in each of the foregoing cases the medical practitioner who has been called in signs a medical certificate with regard to the lunatic, the Justice may direct the lunatic to be received and detained in an institution for lunatics, and the relieving officer, overseer, or constable must forthwith convey the lunatic to such institution.
**7. If a constable, relieving officer, or overseer is satisfied that it is necessary for the public safety or the welfare of an alleged lunatic with regard to whom it is his duty to take any proceedings, that the alleged lunatic should first be placed under care and control, he may be removed to the workhouse of the union in which the alleged lunatic is, and the master shall receive and detain him; but no person can be detained for more than three days, and before the expiration of that time the proceedings must be taken.
**8. Any lunatic escaping may be taken at any time within fourteen days by the manager of the institution for lunatics, or the master of the workhouse, or servants thereof respectively, or by the person in whose charge he was as a single patient, or by anyone authorised in writing by such Manager, Master, or person.
**9. Any person making default in complying with these Acts is liable to a penalty not exceeding £10.
**10. It is desirable that, whenever possible, action should be taken by the relieving officers rather than by police ; but there is a statutory obligation imposed upon the police, and they must in all cases of urgency act upon their own initiative.
**11. Persons suffering from delirium tremens who are violent or dangerous may be regarded as insane.
**12. It is important that police should fully realise the distinction between the two classes of cases and the difference in the procedure.
**13. Where persons are taken charge of by the police they should be searched in order that any dangerous weapon or articles may be taken from them or retained in the custody of the police.

Monty

[robhouse]

If Anderson was so keen to avoid anti Jewish disturbances then why on earth did he later go into print blaming a Jewish suspect?

What, 20 years later?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Robert. Not wacky at all. If you need to get someone off the street, you can find a way.

Cheers.
LC

Exactly its known as "The Ways and Means Act"

[Trevor Marriott]

I know this sounds wacky, but would it have been possible for the police to charge an obvious lunatic with some criminal offence, however minor - resisting arrest, causing damage to asylum facilities, uttering obscenities - specifically with the aim of getting him found unfit to plead and packing him off to Broadmoor? If they adopted such a harsh policy, they could have got rid of both David Cohen and Aaron Kosminski to Berkshire. There would have been no need to falsify anything or collude with anyone : the whole thing would have been done strictly, or ultra-strictly, by the book.

They wouldn't even have had to resort to that someone can be diagnosed as being mad by Doctors no need to go to court

As I said previous many people today who are mad or mentally ill get arrested for criminal offences but they are then examined and certified before any charges are ever made and after being certified the charges are dropped,