Broadmoor Archives finally open

[Cap'n Jack]

With love, from me , to you:

[Natalie Severn]

With love, from me , to you:

----and what a splendid champ of a fellow he is Cap"n----

[Chris]

Thank god, there was an Old Bailey trial, and Saunderson was found not fit to plead, with no mention of 'not fit to stand trial'.

Yes, there was a hearing on the limited issue of his sanity, with medical testimony. But, of course, there was no trial for the murder of Augusta Dawes, because in the hearing on his sanity he was found not fit to stand trial on that charge.

But putting aside the semantics of whether the hearing on his sanity could be described as a "trial", the substantive point - which of course you have been studiously avoiding in favour of the semantic one - is your claim that "At Saunderson's OB trial his father admitted in court that he had lied about his son's age ..."

From the account of the proceedings posted by Robert, it's clear that Saunderson's father didn't give evidence at the Old Bailey, let alone admitting to having perjured himself at the inquest. And - I repeat - the year of birth he indicated at the inquest, 1873, is confirmed by the extract from Walford's County Families posted by Robert three years ago.

[m_w_r]

AP-

You appear to be confused. I have not been following this thread very closely, but I am going to try to help you. Put the baboons away for five minutes.

In English law, the defendant is innocent until proved guilty or insane. A few pages back, there is a newspaper account of the victim's inquest in the Saunderson case, and the coroner makes the point that the mental capacity of Saunderson is outside the remit of that hearing. Fitness to plead comes later in the process. However, that is the only time when the details of the alleged offence are presented in official circumstances. There is a reason for that, which I will explain below.

Next, Saunderson is charged and held pending trial. While he is held pending trial, several people notice that he is insane.

When it is the day of his trial, the defendant is required to enter a plea. He has three choices: "Guilty", "Not guilty" or "Unfit to plead". If the defendant claims that he is "Unfit to plead", then the burden of proof falls on the defence. They have to show that their man is so deranged as to be incapable of understanding the criminal charge he faces. Please note: this means that the evidence brought before the court often post-dates the defendant's arrest. In Saunderson's case, the doctors who observed him when he was held pending trial attended court to testify to his madness. Nobody attended to say whether or not he committed the murder he was accused of. This is standard practice, under English jurisprudence. If he pleads "Unfit to plead", the defendant's guilt or innocence in relation to the offence with which he is charged is not enquired into.

If the defence are able to bring evidence which satisfies the jury that the defendant is unfit to plead, the judge makes an order to have the defendant sent to a mental hospital, and, since the judge is not a mental health expert, this is an indefinite sentence, and the defendant is subject to release only if he recovers his mental health. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. The odds are against them, a bit. Oliver Cyriax mentions the case of Ellis Blogg, found unfit to plead in 1980 in answer to a charge of burning down a cardboard box. It is hard for Blogg to argue that he will never burn down another cardboard box, since, wherever he is incarcerated, he probably never gets the chance. Put him back into society, and who knows what he would really do? This is obviously an injustice, since no jury has ever found Blogg guilty of burning down the cardboard box in the first place. Those who are found unfit to plead generally find themselves on the horns of exactly this dilemma - they cannot prove a negative, and so they end up stuck in institutions indefinitely.

So - the problem on this thread comes when you write of a "trial". Saunderson was not tried for the crime with which he was charged; however, there was a hearing to establish whether he was fit to plead or not. When the jury found that he was not, that was the end of it - the Treasury abandoned the charge, as they were required to, and Saunderson became a case for the Commissioners in Lunacy, and not for the judicial system.

I hope this makes sense - it is about precision, and I think it is worth your while being as precise as possible in your terms of reference.

Regards,

Mark

[Cap'n Jack]

Before Saunderson's trial for murder began at the Old Bailey, the court recorder announced that 'a true bill was found against Reginald Saunderson', therefore he was tried at the OB on a muder charge, by a jury sworn to do that, and reach one of three verdicts, guilty, not guilty or unflt to plead. After advice from the Crown the jury returned a verdict of unfit to plead and Saunderson was ordered to be detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
Just a normal trial for murder at the Central Criminal Court.
The trial was not stopped.
It was not a sanity hearing.
It was an Old Bailey trial for murder, and is recorded as such in the calender of that court.

[m_w_r]

Before Saunderson's trial for murder ...

AP-

I'm glad you're not my lawyer. Shall we try it again, this time, through the medium of role play?

Imagine that you are the foreman of the jury at the Old Bailey. The case is murder, the defendant Saunderson. The whole thing is sorted out in one sitting, and, after the trial, you go home to your long-suffering family. When you go to sleep that night, what is your position with regard to the substantive, historical question of whether or not Saunderson actually committed the murder with which he was charged? Is it:

(a) Saunderson did it; or
(b) Saunderson didn't do it; or
(c) I haven't heard enough evidence to form an opinion about whether Saunderson did it or not?

If the answer is (c), ask yourself whether Saunderson was tried for the murder of Augusta Dawes.

Regards,

Mark

[Cap'n Jack]

My reading of the events surrounding Saunderson's OB trial are of course something else.
Both the defence and Crown were well aware that any claims of insanity - leading to a 'not fit to plead' plea - would have been laughed out of any court of law prior to the Old Bailey trial.
Because Saunderson had written a letter to a friend, signed in his own name, confessing to the murder; showing that he was perfectly aware of his actions and the consequences of those actions.
Equally his determined attempt to escape from the police court - where he had to be restrained by a number of court officers - showed beyond reasonable doubt that he was perfectly aware of his surroundings, and the reason for him being in those surroundings.
Therefore his defence asked for his OB trial, for murder, to be postponed to the next sitting, to allow time to pass to allow the defence to claim that in that period Saunderson's condition had worsened and he was now unfit to plead.
A true bill for murder was found by the court recorder, meaning that when Saunderson walked into the Old Bailey he was on trial for murder. The jury were not sworn at that moment to judge his sanity, they were sworn to return a verdict.
At the moment of the plea, both defence and Crown presented a plea of 'unfit to plead', which the sworn jury had to consider, and accept, or reject.
In this case they accepted the plea, but have no doubt in your minds that if the jury had rejected the plea then the murder trial would have continued.

In The Times report of the 8th January 1895 - which I have quoted already - there is a lesson to be read, and learned, for after a 'true bill' was found against Saunderson, the very next case, a man called Hallsay, was 'thrown out' by the recorder, and never reached trial.
Why?
Because Hallsay was 'of unsound mind and ordered to be detained in an asylum'.
My conclusion?
You boys are full of crap.

[Chris]

There is a perfectly clear statement by the judge, quoted in the report which Robert posted yesterday:
"If the jury were satisfied that he was not mentally competent to plead, he ought not to take his trial."

Saunderson was found not competent to plead, and therefore he was not tried for the murder of Augusta Dawes.

But this whole bogus argument is just a stupendous red herring designed to distract attention from A. P. Wolf's manifestly untrue claim about Saunderson's age:
"At Saunderson's OB trial his father admitted in court that he had lied about his son's age ..."

[m_w_r]

My reading of the events surrounding Saunderson's OB trial are of course something else.

I'll say.

Shall we go through it bit by bit?

You keep writing about the Recorder doing x, y and z, but you need to be careful about just using the snippets in the "Contents" of the daily edition of the Times as if they were a complete, entire, continuous and chronological record of the Old Bailey proceedings. They're not: they're snippets. Here's what you've been reading:



Meanwhile, the real evidence is elsewhere.

You ought to know that a "true bill" was found if the Grand Jury, judging by the prosecution's evidence, presented to them in camera, uncontested by the defence, thought that there were sufficiently compelling grounds to send the accused forward for trial by a jury of his peers. There is a write-up in the Times, on 08.01.1895, which you have either missed or are deliberately concealing, which will give you much more information about the duties of a Grand Jury, and the limits of their remit, which they remark on in Saunderson's case. I am only attaching this part:



If your eyesight is good, you will notice that the next case the Grand Jury considered pertained to one Maurice Winter, not to anyone named Hallsay. Your mistake was, again, only to look at the "Contents". If you check the Old Bailey Proceedings online, you will notice that Hallsay (or Halsey, as his surname is given there) was not considered by the Grand Jury that day, but rather by a jury of his peers. He was found unfit to plead, not by the Recorder, or the Grand Jury, but in court, in the same way as Saunderson later was.

Click here for the Old Bailey Online reference.

Hallsay / Halsey had already been through the Grand Jury system. It's not a matter of interpretation, AP, but one of legal procedure, and appropriate, robust historical methods. Frankly, your laissez-faire approach to evidence wouldn't stand up in court.

Regards,

Mark

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Mark
so Saunderson was tried for murder at the Old Bailey and found by a sworn jury not fit to plead to that charge, is what you are saying, is it not?
Which is what I have been saying all along.
His sanity was not an issue until a plea had been made, so the original charge of murder holds good, does it not?
If that is not the case, then please make the clear statement that Reginald Saunderson was not indicted for murder at the Old Bailey on January 8th 1895.
For it seems that your good self and Chris are claiming he was not so indicted.

[m_w_r]

AP,

so Saunderson was tried for murder at the Old Bailey and found by a sworn jury not fit to plead to that charge...

Oh for Christ's sake. Saunderson was not tried for murder because he was unfit to plead. Go back to the role play, and play it.

Which is what I have been saying all along.

Yes, for once we agree, you have been wrong all along. Apology accepted.

His sanity was not an issue until a plea had been made, so the original charge of murder holds good, does it not?

The indictment was for murder, but it might as well have been for saying nasty things about kittens. Once he was found unfit to plead, there was no criminal case to answer.

If that is not the case, then please make the clear statement that Reginald Saunderson was not indicted for murder at the Old Bailey on January 8th 1895.

Aha, you are changing the rules. You have been insisting on the historical fact of a "trial". Chris and I both pointed out that there was no trial. Now, you are just after an "indictment". An indictment is a charge, a bit of paper saying that someone is accused of something. There was indeed an indictment. But no trial.

For it seems that your good self and Chris are claiming he was not so indicted.

Oh for Christ's sake.

I've tried, AP, and, to be honest, kept my temper when I was told I was full of crap, but I can't take you any further on this one. You won't listen, you won't learn, it's not really very much fun. Let's call it quits. If you don't understand what "quits" means, it means you don't put up another post here claiming victory. I wasn't battling you, just trying to help you understand something. Time for a bit of grace, old chap.

Regards,

Mark

[Cap'n Jack]

Mike
if there wasn't a trial then what was the jury pronouncing a verdict on?
There had to be a trial or a verdict would not have been reached.
Are you really claiming that the Old Bailey held informal insanity sessions where a person could be sectioned for life without rhe consent of a judge and jury.
Are you really trying to tell me that if the jury had rejected a plea of 'not fit' that day then they wouldn't have gone on to reach another verdict.
I do hear you, no doubt, but Saunderson walked into that court charged with murder, not insanity.
I would remind you of Sutcliffe's case where such a plea was rejected by judge and jury and subsequently Sutcliffe was sentenced for murder, but he'd always been charged with it, hadn't he?

[m_w_r]

AP -

Mike

It's Mark, actually.

if there wasn't a trial then what was the jury pronouncing a verdict on?

Saunderson's capacity to answer the indictment. Haven't we gone through this?

There had to be a trial or a verdict would not have been reached.

Again, go back and do the role play. When you have done it, ask yourself whether Saunderson was tried for the murder of Augusta Dawes.

Are you really claiming that the Old Bailey held informal insanity sessions where a person could be sectioned for life without rhe consent of a judge and jury.

No, I am claiming that the formal plea of "unfit to plead", entered by the defence, meant that a hearing to determine the Saunderson's state of mind necessarily ensued. When it had, the jury told the court that they considered Saunderson mentally incompetent to answer the charge. Because of this, the judge ordered his indefinite institutionalisation. There is no non-consensual or informal aspect to any of this. It is how the law works, whether you wish to accept it or not.

Are you really trying to tell me that if the jury had rejected a plea of 'not fit' that day then they wouldn't have gone on to reach another verdict.

Tell me where I said so and I'll buy you a pint. If the jury had found Saunderson fit to answer the charge, they could have found him "Guilty", if they thought he had committed the crime, or "Not Guilty", if they thought he had not. But they would have had to have heard some evidence relating to the commission of the alleged crime first, so the burden of proof would have reverted to the prosecution, and a trial would have been held.

I do hear you, no doubt, but Saunderson walked into that court charged with murder, not insanity.

I don't think you can be charged with insanity in a criminal court. By itself, it is not a crime; it is simply what happens to one when one tries to help AP Wolf with his grievous misapprehensions.

I would remind you of Sutcliffe's case where such a plea was rejected by judge and jury and subsequently Sutcliffe was sentenced for murder, but he'd always been charged with it, hadn't he?

Well, yes. QED. If the judiciary had accepted that Sutcliffe was mad, the circumstances of his alleged crimes would not have been examined in court, or his guilt or innocence technically established in court. But the judge, an independent official, felt that the public interest was better served by a criminal trial. In Saunderson's case, the jury and the judge were satisfied that the defendant was mad, so they sent him for treatment. By invoking Sutcliffe, you are probably aware that we are treading on the edges of a much bigger discussion about criminal responsibility, which I really do not wish to get into, since your misunderstandings in the Saunderson case are simply procedural.

Do try to think things through.

Regards,

Mark

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm beginning to like you Mark.
Do you stock a good bar?

[m_w_r]

Yes, for situations like these.

Regards,

Mark