Broadmoor Archives finally open

[rjpalmer]

Not to change the topic, but surely the Broadmoor admission papers give some indication as to what medical treatment Cutbush received prior to his commital? Or, to cut to the chase, his mental condition between April 1888 and February 1891?

[Chris]

I'm not particularly beset by Saunderson's age in 1888 ...

If you were really not convinced by the evidence you've already been provided with, then you could easily order a copy of Saunderson's birth certificate, which would settle the matter.

On the other hand, if you're "not bothered", can't you at least refrain from posting inaccurate information that is going to mislead people?

[Cap'n Jack]

That's rich coming from you.
And you don't even have the good grace or manners to admit that you were wrong about the Old Bailey trial.

After loading, find a kitchen.

[Chris]

AP

I assume you "couldn't be bothered" to follow the link I provided earlier to the Old Bailey Proceedings website, so here's what you would have seen if you had followed it. I've added some emphasis to reduce even further the effort required of you.

Unfit to Plead
A verdict used after 1822, and applied in those cases where a defendant was not fit to stand trial on the grounds of insanity (or other mental impairment). Defendants who were considered unfit to plead could be placed in "safe custody" at Her Majesty's Pleasure.

I accept that your original misstatement was the result of muddle and confusion, but now you're simply being dishonest.

I repeat, if for reasons best known to yourself you refuse to accept the evidence you've already been provided with that Saunderson was born in 1873, you could easily confirm it for yourself by ordering a copy of his bith certificate, if you could be "bothered". Apparently you prefer to continue misleading people.

[Cap'n Jack]

'where a defendant was not fit to stand trial...'

But my dear chap, Saunderson was fit to stand trial, in front of a sworn jury at the Old Bailey which of and in consequence of produced a verdict of 'unfit to plead'.

In law, two very different things indeed.
I'll leave you to argue with The Times report on the Old Bailey trial of Saunderson for I fear it is yer self that is reckless with the truth.

[Chris]

AP

Well, if you're going to carry on posting this drivel even after it's been explained to you in words of one syllable that "unfit to plead" means "not fit to stand trial", clearly it would be a waste of time to argue the point further.

But just in case there's any danger of anyone being confused by this rather desperate effort to muddy the water over the question of Saunderson's age, I will just repeat:
(1) His father gave evidence at the inquest that Saunderson turned 21 in November 1894.
(2) A. P. Wolf's claim that "At Saunderson's OB trial his father admitted in court that he had lied about his son's age" is absolutely untrue.
(3) Three years ago Robert Linford posted an extract from Walford's County Families (1909) which confirmed that Saunderson was born in 1873.

[Cap'n Jack]

No Chris
a 'not fit to stand trial' is not an indication of insanity on the part of the accused, on the contrary, a deaf and blind person could be termed thus, as they are perhaps unable to follow court proceedings, and or instruct their defence team. Equally I have found cases thus where a 'not fit to stand trial' decision has been reached because the accused has threatened suicide, or suffered an assault just prior to proceedings.
A 'not fit to plead' verdict means that a jury has reached that decision after hearing evidence in court.
That is the difference... and as I told you before I couldn't give a baboon's bare arse how old Reggie was in 1888.

[Robert]

Er - AP.

The Times (London).
15 April 1891.
THOMAS CUTBUSH, 27, described as a clerk, was indicted for having stabbed two young women, in the neighbourhood of Kennington. Mr. de Michele appeared for the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury; Mr. Robert Wallace (with Mr. Fillman) for the defendant. In this case, the facts of which have already been reported, the jury was sworn to try whether the prisoner was sufficiently sound mind to plead to the indictment. Dr. Gilbert, of Holloway Gaol, said he had him under his observation while he had been in custody, and believed him to be insane. In his opinion the prisoner was not able to understand the nature and character of the charge brought against him. The jury found that the prisoner was insane, and not capable of pleading, and the usual order was made for his detention during her MajestyÕs pleasure.

The jury had to try whether the accused could be tried - whether he was fit to plead.

RJ, will come back to your question.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Robert
always willing to take a bruising from you, and glad of it.
But I think the point I was hammering away at was that a trial took place and a verdict was reached by a jury.
Saunderson had his feet in the dock at the Old Bailey and a jury pronounced on him.
To me, humour me, that is an Old Bailey trial.

[Stephen Thomas]

Robert

Much the same thing seems to have happened at Saunderson's 'trial'

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/search.jsp?form=searchHomePage&_divs_fulltext=&_persNames_surname=saunderson&_persNames_given=&_persNames_alias=&_offences_offenceCategory_offenceSubcategory=&_verdicts_verdictCategory_verdictSubcategory=&_punishments_punishmentCategory_punishmentSubcategory=&_divs_div0Type_div1Type=&fromMonth=&fromYear=1895&toMonth=&toYear=1895&ref=&submit.x=51&submit.y=10

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Robert, how is it going with the Broadmoor files?

And if I may digress and take a sort of left turn, a question Lovejoy asked about if there was a photo of Kosminski got me thinking -

There is a photo of James Kelly taken when he entered Broadmoor in 1885. It is here on Casebook. I assume James Tully found it but I don't know that. Does anyone know it's provenance? And on the same track, was it official policy to take an inmate's photo when they entered Broadmoor? Or an asylum in general? So might there also be a photo of THC?

Roy

[Robert]

Hi Roy

I've got the stuff back from my neighbour, who photocopied it so that I could send AP a copy. No, I asked about a pic of Thomas, and there isn't one.

Stephen, here is the Aberdeen Weekly Journal Jan 31st 1895. I hope it doesn't come out tiny and illegible.

[Robert]

Hi RJ

This attack of insanity of Thomas's was listed as his first attack. However, the commencement of the attack is dated in one document as "since 1889 at least" and in another, dated April 1891, as "about 2 years and 5 months."
There is also a note that Thomas himself insisted that Dr Brooks tried to poison him in November 1888.

[Stephen Thomas]

Stephen, here is the Aberdeen Weekly Journal Jan 31st 1895. I hope it doesn't come out tiny and illegible.

Many thanks Robert, that came out fine and it certainly fleshes out the Old Bailey Online report. I'd never thought about what the Victorian name for 'psychiatrist' was but here it is, 'mental expert'.

And what a pity there's no photo of Thomas.

[Cap'n Jack]

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'.
I'll colour the baboon's arse with blue and red and call it a Mandrill.