Broadmoor Archives finally open

[Cap'n Jack]

My kind regards to you also, and I thank you for the exchange.

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Cut Hands

Jack did a lot of cutting in dimly lit areas, with a fast pace, would it be possible to have cut his hand with his knife as he would have needed to have it tended to by a doctor?

Is there a record of emergency care at hospitals evenings or days, which would have any of the suspect’s names in it for cuts that needed to be taken care of?

Even Butchers would cut their hands working as fast as they did and they would have been doing that kind of work for years.

I’m not familiar with the workings of hospitals in 1888 so I’m relying on some help here.

BW

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Mark and AP

If I may make a feeble attempt to cut the Gordian Knot on this one I'd say that Saunderson was on trial for the murder of Augusta Dawes but was not tried for the murder so both of you are right. What I don't understand is where does this leave the police investigation in such cases, as the 'unfit to plead' person could well be innocent? Is it just presumed he was guilty?

[Robert]

Hi Stephen

I imagine it was like it is now when someone, whom police strongly suspect, gets off on a technicality or commits suicide or whatever - police say they're not looking for anyone else.

[Cap'n Jack]

Well I must say that I enjoyed Mark's robust defence of his topic; and I welcome him here as a worthy and well read contributor, but as Saunderson was HMP'd and I was QED'd it took me back to dear old Sutcliffe, and the volatile question of plea bargaining and insanity.
I still believe that what happened to Sutcliffe would have happened to Saunderson, at the Old Bailey, the only difference being that Saunderson was related to the ruling monarch.
Mull this:

'Hansard 1803–2005 → 1980s → 1981 → June 1981 → 4 June 1981 → Written Answers (Commons) → ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Plea Bargaining
Page retrieved: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/w...lea-bargaining
HC Deb 04 June 1981 vol 5 cc389-90W 389W
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
asked the Attorney-General whether he will take action to stop the practice of plea bargaining in serious criminal and murder cases.
§ The Attorney-General
No. The term "plea bargaining" is frequently used by those who do not understand the various possibilities which arise when a defendant expresses a willingness to plead guilty to a "lesser" offence to that with which he has been charged. In such circumstances the prosecution has the duty of deciding whether it is in the public interest that such a plea should be accepted. For example, where a defendant is charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm390W contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonement for life, and is charged in the alternative with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the same Act, for which the maximum penalty is five years imprisonment, a plea to the lesser offence could be accepted, subject to the agreement of the court, if the likely sentence would be no more than five years, whatever the verdict, in the knowledge that the court would reflect the seriousness of the harm done in the sentence imposed. No question of plea bargaining arises where the charge is murder and the evidence of diminished responsibility which can be adduced by the defence and is agreed by the Crown would clearly support a verdict of manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. In such circumstances it would be wrong as a matter of course to forbid the prosecution to accept a plea to manslaughter.

Hansard 1803–2005 → 1980s → 1981 → June 1981 → 4 June 1981 → Written Answers (Commons) → ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Peter Sutcliffe (Trial)
Page retrieved: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/w...utcliffe-trial
HC Deb 04 June 1981 vol 5 c390W 390W
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
asked the Attorney-General to what extent his decision to accept the plea on the claim of the defence in the Peter Sutcliffe murder trial of diminished responsibility was due to the advice offered by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and whether he will make a statement on the matters pertaining to this trial.
§ The Attorney-General
The Director of Public Prosecutions was aware that the defence were not proposing to contest that Sutcliffe killed the victims but that it was proposed to plead to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I asked the director to discuss with me the medical evidence of four doctors. The director and I, with prosecuting counsel, conferred with two doctors instructed by the prosecution as to the effect of the medical evidence. As a result I agreed that it would be right to accept a plea to manslaughter principally because
(a) the medical evidence of all four doctors of diminished responsibility was unanimous;
(b) on a plea to manslaughter the judge would be able to pass a sentence of life imprisonment and the doctors were agreed that in their view, whether Sutcliffe was convicted of murder or manslaughter he should remain in custody for the rest of his natural life;
(c) it would spare the families of the victims many days of extensive press coverage and detailed knowledge of the horrifying injuries.'

[Natalie Severn]

I think Saunderson"s candidacy is about to grow legs AP!

[Cap'n Jack]

'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.'

But, Mark, that little piece of paper was very important wasn't it?
For on the back of it was written 'ignoramus'.

[Chris]

I think Saunderson"s candidacy is about to grow legs AP!

Only for those who believe Jack the Ripper could have been a boy of 14!

But no one who has read this thread could be surprised by anything A. P. Wolf and his chums believe - or purport to believe ...

[m_w_r]

AP -

I have a sore throat and earache and work tomorrow. Do you think I have nothing better to do than this?

I do not intend to debate the Sutcliffe case with you. I thought, initially, that you were confused about what had happened to Saunderson, owing to the slightly unusual legal ramifications of his plea. Now, you are dissimulating, introducing Sutcliffe in an attempt to complicate Saunderson's case by faulty comparison. It is irrelevant to your defective understanding of the procedural details of Saunderson's case. This is not the way to find the truth. I have told you what happened to Saunderson, and still you don't seem to be able to understand it. I don't intend to discuss it further. Circle the plughole by yourself.

Norma, I don't quite understand your comment. I am not sufficiently au fait with the murder which prompted the legal action against Saunderson to be able to judge the probability of his having been Jack the Ripper, but I would warn you against taking AP's vacuous rhetoric at face value. Saunderson may or may not be a good candidate, but no historian who considers herself responsible ought to consider any of AP's inelegant and inexact reasoning over the last couple of pages to be even defensible, never mind compelling.

Goodnight both.

Regards,

Mark

[Natalie Severn]

Only for those who believe Jack the Ripper could have been a boy of 14!

But no one who has read this thread could be surprised by anything A. P. Wolf and his chums believe - or purport to believe ...

Chris,
I think you live in London don"t you.Ever tried counting the number of knifings committed in the past year by teenagers?
Ever heard of Mary Bell----or the Bulger case where the killers-and mutilators were even younger?

[Natalie Severn]

Mark and Chris,
I have an open mind about the Victorian legal system.I am not convinced of its impartiality when it came to the upper classes.I remember reading about how William Morris was acquitted as soon as they realised "who he was"-he had been arrested during the Trafalgar Square Demonstration of 1887.Everyone else got a stiff sentence for what they had done.Ditto The Prince of Wales when his lover named him earlier in the century-sorry I am too tired at the moment to look up her name but she was put in the loony bin.Ditto The Cleveland Affair when the manager of the Brothel,an aristocrat, was allowed to overturn the law by Abberline---and "go abroad".

Put not your trust in Princes---as they say!But hey!---you believe what you want.
Cheers
Norma

Ps---I rather doubt Saunderson was the Ripper quite frankly---unless there was some truth in the father and the age thing!

[Chris]

I think you live in London don"t you.Ever tried counting the number of knifings committed in the past year by teenagers?
Ever heard of Mary Bell----or the Bulger case where the killers-and mutilators were even younger?

[snip to next message ...]

Ps---I rather doubt Saunderson was the Ripper quite frankly---unless there was some truth in the father and the age thing!

I think the argument that the Jack the Ripper may have been in his early teens probably deserves a thread of its own, but judging from your follow-up message you're not really serious about it.

As for whether there's any truth in A. P. Wolf's claim that Saunderson's father gave evidence at the Old Bailey that he had lied about his son's age at the inquest, I think the answer to that is pretty clear - particularly considering that the date of birth he had indicated, 1873, was confirmed by the extract from Walford's County Families posted by Robert three years ago in response to an appeal for information by A. P. But as I keep saying, the correct date of birth would be very easy to check, if anyone is really not convinced by the evidence that's already been provided.

[Stephen Thomas]

Mr. Arthur Lewis
asked the Attorney-General to what extent his decision to accept the plea on the claim of the defence in the Peter Sutcliffe murder trial of diminished responsibility was due to the advice offered by the Director of Public Prosecutions; and whether he will make a statement on the matters pertaining to this trial.
§ The Attorney-General
The Director of Public Prosecutions was aware that the defence were not proposing to contest that Sutcliffe killed the victims but that it was proposed to plead to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I asked the director to discuss with me the medical evidence of four doctors. The director and I, with prosecuting counsel, conferred with two doctors instructed by the prosecution as to the effect of the medical evidence. As a result I agreed that it would be right to accept a plea to manslaughter principally because
(a) the medical evidence of all four doctors of diminished responsibility was unanimous;
(b) on a plea to manslaughter the judge would be able to pass a sentence of life imprisonment and the doctors were agreed that in their view, whether Sutcliffe was convicted of murder or manslaughter he should remain in custody for the rest of his natural life;
(c) it would spare the families of the victims many days of extensive press coverage and detailed knowledge of the horrifying injuries.'

Excellent stuff AP

The authorities knew perfectly well that Sutcliffe was not well in the head but were determined to get him done for murder as opposed to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I actually spent a day in the public gallery watching the trial. Some vignettes of that.....

Sutcliffe was in the dock to the left of me, the jury was directly opposite me and the judge was on the right. Directly below were lawyers in wigs and gowns and on their table were scattered horrible crime scene photographs.

I thought hey this is just like that illegal Crippen photo.

One of the jurors was an attractive young blonde lady and Sutcliffe spent a lot of time staring at her, to her obvious discomfort. He briefly looked me in the eye one time but I turned my head away.

He had Afro hair, texture I mean, very unusual on a white man, so he must definitely have worn a hat during his non-fatal attacks. I don't believe that this has been commented on before.

In the queue before getting in, I talked to a taxi driver from 'up North' who had been seriously suspected of being the Yorkshire Ripper and as a consequence lost his family and friends. I asked him why he'd come all this way and he said 'I just want to see that b*stard who ruined my life'.

At the height of the trial there was an unprecedented full page advert in the London Evening Standard for a double bill of two 'Slasher' movies.

At the trial I watched a prosecution lawyer tear apart the evidence of a psychiatrist who had been studying Sutcliffe and believed him to be psychotic. Well briefed or what.

[Robert]

One curious ramification of the "unfit to plead" scenario is that on the (presumably rare) occasions when a lunatic was judged to have recovered his sanity, he might be hauled back into court to plead to the charge. Then I suppose the question would be, if he were found guilty, was he insane at the time of the crime? I can't say I've ever heard of this happening, but then I haven't gone into it.

[Sam Flynn]

What if he were subsequently found to be insane at the point where he initially decided to enter a plea of insanity?