Druitt's room

[GUT]

Maybe my above post on Montie's performance in R v Power was a bit harsh, whilst it appears that the result was almost a forgone conclusion he did, after all, get the result.

In all of his case that we have reports of it appears that the result was pretty much what you would have expected given the facts that we have, no barrister can ask much more than that.

[Mayerling]

On another matter, the timing of when Macnaghten knew, or believed he knew that Druitt was the Ripper, is arguably before the date March 1st 1891 (in the wake of the MP leak on Feb 11th) as this is when Sims/Dagonet suddenly reverses himself about really looking like the killer according to a coffee-stall owner. Sims, however, has to completely revise a tale he had treated in 1889 as a joke, e.g. then the book was a collection of his poems and it was in the wake of a single murder (Alice McKenzie) not the double event of 1888.

"Mustard and Cress" in "The Referee"of March 1, 1891:

'... As a matter of fact, a year or two ago my portrait (the portrait outside the early cheap edition of "The Social Kaleidoscope") was taken to Scotland-yard by a man, and the police were informed that it was an exact likeness of the murderer. The way I got mixed up in the matter was this. An hour or two after the double murder had been committed on the night of September 30, 1888, a man of strange and wild appearance stopped at a coffee-stall. The coffee-stall keeper (knowing nothing then of the night's tragedy) began to talk about the Whitechapel murder. "I dare say we shall soon hear of another," he said. "Very likely," replied the wild-looking stranger; "perhaps you may hear of two to-morrow morning." He finished his coffee, and as he put the cup down the stall-keeper noticed that his cuffs were blood-stained.

The next morning - or rather, later on that morning - the news of the double murder in Whitechapel fell upon the startled ears of the coffee-stall keeper. "Good Lord!" he exclaimed; "why, that chap last night knew it. He must have been Jack himself!"

Walking along he came to a bookseller's and newsagent's. He looked at the placards, and then his eye suddenly rested on a book in the newsagent's window. Outside that book was a portrait. "Christopher Columbus!" exclaimed the coffee-stall keeper; "why that's the very image of him!" The book was "The Social Kaleidoscope." The astonished stall-keeper bought it, and, later on, when telling his adventures to the police, he produced the book and showed the portrait. Not only was this portrait of me shown to the police, but it was taken by the purchaser to the editor of the New York Herald (London edition), and afterwards to Dr. Forbes Winslow.

The matter came to my knowledge through the courtesy of the Herald editor, and Dr. Forbes Winslow also communicated with me, and I investigated the facts. The coffee-stall keeper, who was interviewed, was perfectly candid and straightforward, and at once explained that he didn't for a moment mean to say that I was his blood-stained customer on the night of the murders. All he meant was that his customer's features were very like mine ...'

Whilst that picture on the cover of the book about the Social Question does bear resemblance to the high school pictures of Druitt--because the chubby Sims was, as he admitted in an interview in 1904, atypically thinner of face due to illness--his own picture of himself as a teenager is an even stronger likeness. Howard Brown put this up on the other site (though you need tpo scroll down to see Montie directly compared with Sims):

http://jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=22556

If Macnaghten was obsessed with concealment why would his chum be broadcasting that he looked like the real killer?

My theory is that Mac was not sure if he could contain the "West of England" MP story that was doing the rounds of London. It was partly insurance to give the impression that the 'police' were onto this suspect in 1888, or something along those lines. As it was the leak was successfully plugged (except for the MP being briefly named in 1892) and Sims did not return to this notion until 1902.

A pair of brief questions Jon.

Have you found a copy of "The Social Kaleidoscope" that was out on September 30, 1888? If you have, can you put up the picture in it of Sims?

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Maybe my above post on Montie's performance in R v Power was a bit harsh, whilst it appears that the result was almost a forgone conclusion he did, after all, get the result.

In all of his case that we have reports of it appears that the result was pretty much what you would have expected given the facts that we have, no barrister can ask much more than that.

True, but I am curious why Montie took the Power case. It is an open and shut affair, and it actually helps his client to prove he was mad when he attacked the victim. Not much legal glory involved in it, if you think about it. Did Montie owe a favor to some legal friend who requested he take it, or to the family of the perpetrator asking for his help? Did he and the family of the perpetrator know each other due to an involvement with alienists or asylums?

What more can we find out about Christopher Power, age 32 in 1888 (so he was born in 1856. He was an engineer's clerk. And he had a persecution complex that turned violent. He went to a prison for the insane or an asylum. I notice that Charles F. Gill is the prosecutor - he was a noted figure in the criminal courts of the next thirty years. How unimportant is this case - how routine?
Jeff

[GUT]

True, but I am curious why Montie took the Power case. It is an open and shut affair, and it actually helps his client to prove he was mad when he attacked the victim. Not much legal glory involved in it, if you think about it. Did Montie owe a favor to some legal friend who requested he take it, or to the family of the perpetrator asking for his help? Did he and the family of the perpetrator know each other due to an involvement with alienists or asylums?

What more can we find out about Christopher Power, age 32 in 1888 (so he was born in 1856. He was an engineer's clerk. And he had a persecution complex that turned violent. He went to a prison for the insane or an asylum. I notice that Charles F. Gill is the prosecutor - he was a noted figure in the criminal courts of the next thirty years. How unimportant is this case - how routine?
Jeff

It really looks routine to me Jeff.

As for why Montie took the case, the Bar has had a cab rank rule since at least the time of Charles II, this means that if you are offered a brief, you are available and t is in your area of expertise, and the client will pay your fee, you MUST take the brief, whether you like the case, the client or the solicitor of even f you despise all three.

It is basically designed so that even the most despicable criminal who commits the most hideous of crimes can get representation.

And yes Gill built one heck of a reputation, but again he took what he was offered. Even today you can be in the High Court in the Morning, dong a murder appeal, and before a Magistrate on a drink drive the same afternoon.

[Mayerling]

It really looks routine to me Jeff.

As for why Montie took the case, the Bar has had a cab rank rule since at least the time of Charles II, this means that if you are offered a brief, you are available and t is in your area of expertise, and the client will pay your fee, you MUST take the brief, whether you like the case, the client or the solicitor of even f you despise all three.

It is basically designed so that even the most despicable criminal who commits the most hideous of crimes can get representation.

And yes Gill built one heck of a reputation, but again he took what he was offered. Even today you can be in the High Court in the Morning, dong a murder appeal, and before a Magistrate on a drink drive the same afternoon.

Hi Gut,

It may be routine, but there is the power of solicitors to seek out barristers in cases. I read the book "The Mild Murderer" by Tom Cullen about Crippen, and his solicitor actually sought out Edward Marshall-Hall for the brief. Marshall-Hall had a defense ready for Crippen, and while it had a major flaw it might have been swallowed by a jury. But Marshall-Hall was away when the solicitor came to M-H's chambers, and had to deal with the chief clerk there. Some silly argument developed and the solicitor angrily left the chambers and found another attorney (one who was not as gifted as a criminal court gladiator as Marshall-Hall). It's that selectivity that I was considering (I should have been more specific). If Power's family had told his solicitor they knew a young barrister who faced similar family problems perhaps that is why Montie got the case.

Jeff

[GUT]

Hi Gut,

It may be routine, but there is the power of solicitors to seek out barristers in cases. I read the book "The Mild Murderer" by Tom Cullen about Crippen, and his solicitor actually sought out Edward Marshall-Hall for the brief. Marshall-Hall had a defense ready for Crippen, and while it had a major flaw it might have been swallowed by a jury. But Marshall-Hall was away when the solicitor came to M-H's chambers, and had to deal with the chief clerk there. Some silly argument developed and the solicitor angrily left the chambers and found another attorney (one who was not as gifted as a criminal court gladiator as Marshall-Hall). It's that selectivity that I was considering (I should have been more specific). If Power's family had told his solicitor they knew a young barrister who faced similar family problems perhaps that is why Montie got the case.

Jeff

G'day Jeff

That part's right, sometimes the client will ask for a particular Barrister, though most solicitor's have particular Counsel they prefer to work with. Also in the larger cities [ie London] sometimes a Sol will try to brief someone and when that Barrister is not available the chambers clerk will recommend someone else in the same chambers.

Unfortunately we just don't know who was briefing Montie. Likewise I'd love to see a real transcript of one of his cases, [basically to get a better feel for the man, at least as a Barrister] but I'm pretty sure that they didn't exist as we know them now.

[Rosella]

Marshall Hall always denied the story that Newton approached him to take the brief. Newton wanted F.E. Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, to defend Crippen but he elected to defend the girlfriend, Ethel Le Neve.

Arthur Newton, Crippen's solicitor, was too smart for his own good. Following Crippen's execution he was found guilty of conspiring with Horatio Bottomley, the rogue Magazine proprietor, to manufacture a typed and signed confession of guilt from Crippen. He was struck off for twelve months for professional misconduct. Several years later he was jailed on another matter.

[GUT]

If I was in a spot of bother I'd be happy with either Marshall Hall or Smith. Two masters of the art of advocacy.

[Robert]

Power was Irish, and died in Broadmoor in 1913.

Curiously, on the same page of the 1891 census we have John Yerby Power, slightly older and also born Ireland. I don't know if they were related. This second Power had been given six years for larceny and receiving, then adjudged insane and so moved from prison to Broadmoor. In 1892 he was judged sane and so sent back to prison where he presumably finished his sentence.

[Rosella]

Yes, they were, though not inexpensive. If I could time travel I'd definitely be in court to warch Marshall Hall at the height of his powers defending a client on a capital charge.

If Jack had been ever been brought to trial I wonder whether he would have been defended by a famous advocate?

[Jonathan H]

A student once asked me if Druitt would have defended himself?

[Mayerling]

A student once asked me if Druitt would have defended himself?

This reminds me of the old truism, "A man who defends himself in court has a fool for a client."

[Mayerling]

Marshall Hall always denied the story that Newton approached him to take the brief. Newton wanted F.E. Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, to defend Crippen but he elected to defend the girlfriend, Ethel Le Neve.

Arthur Newton, Crippen's solicitor, was too smart for his own good. Following Crippen's execution he was found guilty of conspiring with Horatio Bottomley, the rogue Magazine proprietor, to manufacture a typed and signed confession of guilt from Crippen. He was struck off for twelve months for professional misconduct. Several years later he was jailed on another matter.

Newton had a "colorful" career. He was involved, in the 1890s, in the blackmail scheme of Daisy, Countess of Warwick, regarding letters she had from Bertie, the Prince of Wales. Actually, after he got permanently struck off the rolls as a solicitor, he recovered and entered some other lucrative trade.

Not so Bottomley after that Victory Bond Fraud in 1922.

As for Marshall - Hall he did have a theory on the case which appears in the Majoribanks' biography of the advocate, "For the Defense".

I would have like to have seen M-H, or FE or Carson or Simon or Isaacs in court myself.

And as for whoever was the Ripper, he'd need the best legal talent available to mount any kind of successful defense. And it was not guaranteed. Gerald Geoghegan (who defended Neill Cream in 1892) was a pretty good barrister up to that time (later his nerve collapsed, and he apparently committed suicide in 1902). Geoghegan still lost his case, and Cream hanged. The evidence was just to crazy to overcome.

Jeff

[Bridewell]

If Jack had been ever been brought to trial I wonder whether he would have been defended by a famous advocate?

Interesting question. It would be a difficult brief I would have thought because every man and his dog would want you to fail.

[GUT]

Yes, they were, though not inexpensive. If I could time travel I'd definitely be in court to warch Marshall Hall at the height of his powers defending a client on a capital charge.

If Jack had been ever been brought to trial I wonder whether he would have been defended by a famous advocate?

I expect so. Unless they decided that briefing a Smth or Marshall Hall would make the punter look desperate and thus go for a Neville No Name.

As mentioned above the Cab Rank rule obliges a Barrister [with a few exceptions] to take any brief offered in their fields of practice.

But perhaps more importantly the best advocates want the hardest cases, they thrive on the challenge.