Druitt's room

[GUT]

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

G'day Bridewell

How does everyone wanting you to fail make it a difficult brief?

[GUT]

G'day Jeff

Re Cream you said:

The evidence was just to crazy to overcome.

In many [maybe most] cases the facts are the issue not some brilliant legal strategy.

People often say to me "What's your win/loss ratio". The honest answer is I have no idea, how do you decide a win or a loss, say it's a criminal matter and my client gets ten years, have I won or lost, it all depends on the facts, sometimes it is an outstanding win [as on first blush it looks like he'd get life] on others it's a disaster as you though he might get off.

[GUT]

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."

Exactly!

Most sensible lawyers won't even act for family and friends in Court matters, because sooner or later you may well have to give unpleasant advice.

[Robert]

Hi GUT

I'm surprised that lawyers are allowed to act for family and friends. I thought it was a rule that if the accused confesses his guilt to his lawyer, the lawyer must relinquish the case. Acting for family would put a strain on that rule, I would imagine.

[GUT]

Hi GUT

I'm surprised that lawyers are allowed to act for family and friends. I thought it was a rule that if the accused confesses his guilt to his lawyer, the lawyer must relinquish the case. Acting for family would put a strain on that rule, I would imagine.

Not quite, if a client were to confess guilt his Barrister can retan the brief and either:

Plead guilty and seek to mitigate the sentence or

Put the prosecution case to the test [and not put on an affirmative case of innocence].

A Barrister also has a duty to ensure that s/he or the client do not mislead the Court, so f you know that the client has lied in evidence, you must advise them to correct the evidence or return the brief if they won't.

Re acting for family and friends, technically it's allowed, most don't think it's a good idea, and don't forget Lawyers act in a lot of non criminal matters too, but the same applies, it can be hard to tell someone to get reasonable about their prospects.

[Roy Corduroy]

In reference to the Sept 1888 trial of Mr. Power you asked -

Was there are Drewitt at the Bar in London at the time?

The 1881 census shows Wiiliam H who was apparently law clerking in London at the time. (click)

[Robert]

Yes I suppose if they tell them to plead guilty they'll be blamed by the family member for ever more.

[GUT]

In reference to the Sept 1888 trial of Mr. Power you asked -



The 1881 census shows Wiiliam H who was apparently law clerking in London at the time. (click)

I wonder if this was brother William. [Inquest says William H and a few years older than Montie].

If so Drewitt may have been a common (mis) spelling for Druitt.

[GUT]

Yes I suppose if they tell them to plead guilty they'll be blamed by the family member for ever more.

G'day Robert

But as I said it even extends beyond the criminal matters, say it's a child contact case and you have to say, take what they are offering, on the evidence we have it's as good/better than the judge is likely to give us. Or a civil case on a debt, look on the evidence you can pay them $50000 and walk away at a hearing they could get $100,000, not always easy advice to give even worse when it's to family or friends [even harder when you think they deserve a better result but the evidence isn't there.]

[Mayerling]

G'day Jeff

Re Cream you said:



In many [maybe most] cases the facts are the issue not some brilliant legal strategy.

People often say to me "What's your win/loss ratio". The honest answer is I have no idea, how do you decide a win or a loss, say it's a criminal matter and my client gets ten years, have I won or lost, it all depends on the facts, sometimes it is an outstanding win [as on first blush it looks like he'd get life] on others it's a disaster as you though he might get off.

Hi Gut,

You are right, the majority of trial hangs on the success of the facts, not brilliant defense strategies. But even in the worst cases sometimes a telling blow can be made by a concentration on a weak point in the fact pattern. In the Seddon Case, Marshall-Hall actually demonstrated that there was a possibility that the victim had abnormal amounts of arsenic due to natural causes. Wilcox, who was the lead pathologist on the case, was being cross-examined about this and had to give some ground about it. But the case closed for the day with Wilcox still on the stand. He went back to the lab and tested the victim's tissues, and on the following day he was able to rebut the theory more substantially. I don't know if Wilcox could have gotten away with that today, a century later, but public experts were given more leeway in 1912.

Jeff

[GUT]

Hi Gut,

You are right, the majority of trial hangs on the success of the facts, not brilliant defense strategies. But even in the worst cases sometimes a telling blow can be made by a concentration on a weak point in the fact pattern. In the Seddon Case, Marshall-Hall actually demonstrated that there was a possibility that the victim had abnormal amounts of arsenic due to natural causes. Wilcox, who was the lead pathologist on the case, was being cross-examined about this and had to give some ground about it. But the case closed for the day with Wilcox still on the stand. He went back to the lab and tested the victim's tissues, and on the following day he was able to rebut the theory more substantially. I don't know if Wilcox could have gotten away with that today, a century later, but public experts were given more leeway in 1912.

Jeff

G'day Jeff

That's the true art of cross-examination, fining and exposing the holes in the facts.

And I think what you describe Wilcox as doing was [and still would be] perfectly acceptable.

[Roy Corduroy]

I wonder if this was brother William. [Inquest says William H and a few years older than Montie].

It could have been. By using your mouse and clicking on the red word (click)
you will be taken to a link to the census program where you see he was born in Wimborne Minster, Dorset, England and is about the right age. (If the link works in your area)

If so Drewitt may have been a common (mis) spelling for Druitt.

Yes it was a misspelling.

But Drewitt is the correct spelling for some people, such as Dr Frederick Drewitt. Again, using your mouse, (click) here to see Dr Drewitt's census entry.

This list of Fellows year of admittance to the Royal College of Physicians confirms the spelling of Drewitt is correct in this instance.



This Dr. Drewitt is almost 10 years older than Montague Druitt.

[GUT]

Roy I had looked at the entry and noticed the Wimborne Minster, what I was originally looking for, but so far can't find is a Drewitt at the bar, to make sure that t was Montie who acted for Power.

[Jonathan H]

Yes that's William who died of a heart attack while running for a bus in 1909.

He is veiled by George Sims (Dagonet) from 1902 as one of the "friends" who know the truth about the "mad doctor".

[GUT]

G'day Jonathan

If anyone knows you might. It appears William did his clerkship in or around London, any idea who he did it with?