The McNaughton Rule

[Chava]

I have a question for UK solicitors or barristers in criminal practice. I hope we've got one or so on this board!

If 'the suspect' is at the Seaside Home because he is considered insane, would he ever have been eligible for the death penalty? Everything I can find suggests that the McNaughton Rule would have applied here. The suspect has already been basically sectioned in the Seaside Home. He could be brought up for trial. He was clearly insane. He would have gone to Broadmoor for the rest of his life. I can't believe that wasn't pointed out to the witness who apparently refused to identify the suspect because he didn't want the guy to swing and so be on his conscience.

So all-in-all, I rather think the whole thing is hogwash.

[Chris]

I have a question for UK solicitors or barristers in criminal practice. I hope we've got one or so on this board!

If 'the suspect' is at the Seaside Home because he is considered insane, would he ever have been eligible for the death penalty? Everything I can find suggests that the McNaughton Rule would have applied here. The suspect has already been basically sectioned in the Seaside Home. He could be brought up for trial. He was clearly insane. He would have gone to Broadmoor for the rest of his life. I can't believe that wasn't pointed out to the witness who apparently refused to identify the suspect because he didn't want the guy to swing and so be on his conscience.

So all-in-all, I rather think the whole thing is hogwash.

Taking the Swanson annotations at face value, there is no suggestion that the suspect had been "sectioned" at the time of the identification - he returned afterwards to his brother's house, and it was only later that he was sent to Colney Hatch. Anderson said in the serial version of his memoirs that the suspect was identified when he was "caged in an asylum", but that was omitted from the book version, so he may have realised it was a mistake.

[Chava]

Thanks Chris!

But the question still stands. If the witness is taken to see the suspect, and the suspect is in some kind of an 'rest home' for people who are mentally challenged, surely the policeman accompanying the witness would say to him 'I realize you don't want this man's death on your conscience. But he's here because he has mental problems, and it's likely he will be judged criminally insane and sent to a hospital. So don't worry about hanging...'

It's an obvious ploy for the copper, because all he needs is the identification. I just don't see the witness being taken all that way, refusing to id the suspect and it just being left like that.

[The Grave Maurice]

OK, I'm confused (and, believe me, this isn't the first time). I thought that the suspect was taken to the Seaside Home to be identified by a witness who was at the Home, and that the Home was a convalescent facility for police officers. I always assumed that it was used, primarily, for the treatment of physical, not mental, disorders.

I think I'll go and do some more reading.

[Chava]

Having re-read the notes, it sees the witness did identify the suspect and then refused to give evidence against him. Which would lay him open to a charge of obstruction of justice. The more I think about this, the more it smells.

Maurice, I think it's the suspect that's in the seaside home...

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Chava,

The essay which I find the most helpful is Kosminski and the Seaside Home, written by Stewart Evans in 1999 (click here)

Roy

[Chris]

OK, I'm confused (and, believe me, this isn't the first time). I thought that the suspect was taken to the Seaside Home to be identified by a witness who was at the Home, and that the Home was a convalescent facility for police officers. I always assumed that it was used, primarily, for the treatment of physical, not mental, disorders.

The trouble is that nothing is made explicit in the "marginalia", beyond the mention of the "Seaside Home". It has been argued that this must mean the Convalescent Police Seaside Home, but that is not stated. Of course, there were many seaside homes of various kinds.

Nor is it clear whether - if it was a different seaside home - either the witness or the suspect was staying in the home at the time.

One thing I have been wondering recently is whether the wording of the marginalia - "sent by us with difficulty", "on suspects return" - might indicate that the police had had the suspect sent to stay in the home so that he could be identified without arousing his suspicions. If that were the case it might partly account for Anderson's initial claim (later omitted) that the suspect was "caged in an asylum" at the time. It might also perhaps account for the statement in the marginalia that "he knew he was identified", which would otherwise seem redundant.

[claire]

On a purely legal front, the M'Naughten Rule applies when a culprit can be shown to be insane at the time of the offence and, moreover, that s/he was insane to the extent that s/he was incapable of determining right from wrong (ie. s/he wasn't able to tell that s/he was committing an offence). Just being insane is not sufficient defence...there are plenty of instances of mental illness that don't lead to a determination of diminished responsibility.

If someone is legally insane under M'Naughten (ie. incapable of knowing they were doing wrong at the time of the offence), they are found not guilty by virtue of diminished responsibility (or guilty of manslaughter by virtue of DR). Any sentence is then up to the court, but they are usually committed to a secure unit (an asylum, in the olden days!). So, yeah, they'd beat the death rap.

[Chava]

Thanks, Chris, for that link.

I have to say, however, that I still can't understand why the witness refused to give evidence. If Kosminski is insane, he won't hang. So no reason whatsoever for Lawende to withhold evidence against him.

[cappuccina]

Hi Chava -

Yes, your logic is correct, which is why I believe that: a) Lawende knew who the Ripper was; and b) that the Ripper was a local mentally disturbed Jewish man, and Lawende was protecting him, perhaps due to the extreme anti-Semetic issues of the day (he was worried about what would happen in the area), or because of who the Ripper's family was, etc...

(I am not saying that Lawende should have protected this maniac; what I am saying is that "working backwards" form the fact that Lawende refused to give evidence gives us some clues as to wqho the Ripper may have been...)

[Chava]

Hi Chava -

Yes, your logic is correct, which is why I believe that: a) Lawende knew who the Ripper was; and b) that the Ripper was a local mentally disturbed Jewish man, and Lawende was protecting him, perhaps due to the extreme anti-Semetic issues of the day (he was worried about what would happen in the area), or because of who the Ripper's family was, etc...

(I am not saying that Lawende should have protected this maniac; what I am saying is that "working backwards" form the fact that Lawende refused to give evidence gives us some clues as to wqho the Ripper may have been...)

I agree that Lawende may have felt he was protecting a family or preventing anti-semitism or whatever. However I don't see any sane(!) person protecting something like the Ripper. That kind of protections could backfire horribly. You couldn't even argue that the Ripper was preying on prostitutes, so Jewish women wouldn't be harmed anyway. Because there were a lot of Jewish prostitutes in the East End at the time.

Absent all the literary flourishes, what I expect actually happened was something like this:

'Here's the man, sir. We think he's Jack the Ripper. Do you recognize him as the person you saw with Eddowes?'

'Well he looks a bit like him. Maybe.'

'Will you give evidence in court that this man was the man you saw?'

'No. It does look like the man I saw. But I'm not sure and I can't go on oath that this was the man.'

This isn't a good look for the police. So they spin it as 'the witness recognized the suspect but wouldn't testify because he didn't want to see a fellow-Jew swing...'

[cappuccina]

Hi Chava -

Again, I understand what you are saying...I don't think, though, that Lawende was operating under "normal" logic...I think that he was so afraid of the repercussions for Jews in general in the East End, that he chose to protect a homicidal maniac. I don't agree with what he did; I'm just trying to "get inside his head"...

I think the issue of prostitutes was secondary to all of this for Lawende...He wasn't going to talk and implicate a fellow Jew, no matter how crazy the guy was, and, in addition, there may have been additional reasons depending on who the Ripper's family was...and it's possible connections to Lawende or others that we don't know about...

If you think about it, it's kind of like what goes on now with doctors and police officers protecting "one of their own"...

[Chava]

It's true, Cappuccina, that we Jews don't like to see one of our guys get it in the neck! But we're not that clannish! The repercussions for the Jews would be much, much worse if Lawende had failed to identify the suspect, he'd killed again, and the blame laid on the Jews who wouldn't give up one of their own to Gentile justice. At the time of the Lawende identification there hadn't been any more killings for a while. But there was still the possibility that the Ripper would strike again.

[cappuccina]

Hi Chava...

We're not that clannish now...but some of us may have been back then...(My mom's family were Jewish tailors in New York City's Lower East Side, and there was stuff like this that went on there too...)

Remember, Lawende was not operating with your intelligence and logic...

He may have also been afraid that he - Lawende would be murdered or his family murdered because he was viewed as a "rat"...

[Robert]

How did "Lawende as witness" get smuggled into this with such certainty? Lawende stated at the inquest that he doubted if he'd know the man again.