Did the Seaside Home ID happen?

[Chris]

I completely agree with this post. Robust discussion is fine, but resorting to personal insults is simply childish. However, it seems to be habitual behaviour with one or two posters.

Certainly there has been no shortage of childish insults in the discussions of this subject.

[Batman]

Whoever brings home the bread wins. New research, new facts, those things.

Is there any answer as to why a witness is at a police retirement spa? Like did they take patients to Brighton for the seaside and managed to bring him there in the meantime for ID?

[Chris]

Of course, under the McNaughton Rules insanity would be a complete defence to a charge of murder,i.e because the defendant would lack the necessary mens rea. Of course, that doesn't mean he would necessarily have been insane at the time of the offences. However, if Kosminski was certified insane presumably he would have subsequently been declared unfit to plead and stand trial, i.e. if charges were brought against him.

I must admit I've always assumed that an insane man couldn't have been tried or convicted. But by coincidence I'm reading Fenton Bresler's study of the reprieve system, published in 1965, at the moment, and I see that neither of those assumptions is true.

A counter-example is the case of Ronald True in 1922. At his trial, the prison medical officers both gave evidence that he was certifiably insane, but he not only stood trial, but was convicted and sentenced to death (though later reprieved). The prosecution argued successfully that the McNaughton Rules were more stringent than the medical criteria for insanity.

[Chris]

Is there any answer as to why a witness is at a police retirement spa?

Again, it's only an assumption that the witness was there and the suspect was sent to him. And it's an assumption that the Police Seaside Home is the one referred to.

I think a more plausible explanation is that the suspect was sent to a seaside home as a patient, and that the witness was taken to see him there.

[GUT]

I must admit I've always assumed that an insane man couldn't have been tried or convicted. But by coincidence I'm reading Fenton Bresler's study of the reprieve system, published in 1965, at the moment, and I see that neither of those assumptions is true.

A counter-example is the case of Ronald True in 1922. At his trial, the prison medical officers both gave evidence that he was certifiably insane, but he not only stood trial, but was convicted and sentenced to death (though later reprieved). The prosecution argued successfully that the McNaughton Rules were more stringent than the medical criteria for insanity.

And they are.

McNaughten says that to "qualify" the defendant must have been unable to recognise the difference between right and wrong [in a nutshell].

So you can have the most severe mental illness and still be legally insane.

[harry]

PaulB ,
I am not arguing against anything.I am stating an opinion.That opinion is that if an identification took place that identified Jack the ripper,and a police officer was present,an arrest was warranted,and would have been made.There could be no guarantee on releasing such a person,even to his family,that he would not kill again.In addition,arrest would give the authorities time to have him certified and committed to an institution,if trial was decided against.Many persons coming under suspicion during the ripper killings were arrested.There has been nothing printed,that I am aware of,that any of those came close to being identified,as Kosminski was reported to have been.So why should he be treated differently.So yes,the thinking that such an identification did not take place is certainly valid at this point in time,and equal to any suggestion that it did.
I do not need a knowledge of Victorian police proceedures,or ask Monty to state what I did.Police then as now could arrest on reasonable suspicion.and I doubt very strongly,that any Victorian police officer would have shirked that responsibility, if faced with evidence that identified Jack the Ripper.
As for research, whats your point.You think I Don't.

[Chris]

And they are.

Yes. But it does surprise me that someone certifiably insane could be fit to stand trial.

[GUT]

Yes. But it does surprise me that someone certifiably insane could be fit to stand trial.

But totally different criteria, all the law cares about is did s/he know that what s/he did was wrong. If they did they are punished. See even in 1888 someone suffering what today we would call depression, or even bipolar disorder, would be classified as insane [OMG even anyone who tried or succeeded in committing suicide was classified as insane] but such a person could still be aware that the crime they were committing was indeed a crime.

[caz]

Hi Trevor
The only thing that's "cuckoo" is yours , Simon woods, and Phil Carter's obvious jeoulosy of such stalwarts of ripper history as Paul Begg , Stewart Evans and others that it is so apparent that even noobs such as myself can see.

Take it for what it's worth-grow up, take a deep breath, stand on the shoulders of giants such as your esteemed countryman, and greatest thinker of all time, Isaac newton did, work with them instead of antagonize them and we may all be the wiser.

I was just thinking, the easiest way to tell if a (conspiracy) theory is likely to be barking is to see who is arguing for it and against it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

But totally different criteria, all the law cares about is did s/he know that what s/he did was wrong. If they did they are punished. See even in 1888 someone suffering what today we would call depression, or even bipolar disorder, would be classified as insane [OMG even anyone who tried or succeeded in committing suicide was classified as insane] but such a person could still be aware that the crime they were committing was indeed a crime.

It seems that regarding fitness to plead, the main consideration was whether the accused understood the trial process. Evidently quite a broad view was taken of this. According to his counsel, John Straffen said to him before his trial in 1952, "I am going to plead guilty and let the jury decide" (!).

[Trevor Marriott]

Again, it's only an assumption that the witness was there and the suspect was sent to him. And it's an assumption that the Police Seaside Home is the one referred to.

I think a more plausible explanation is that the suspect was sent to a seaside home as a patient, and that the witness was taken to see him there.

Then that would rule out Aaron Kosminski would it not ?

[GUT]

It seems that regarding fitness to plead, the main consideration was whether the accused understood the trial process. Evidently quite a broad view was taken of this. According to his counsel, John Straffen said to him before his trial in 1952, "I am going to plead guilty and let the jury decide" (!).

Ahhh but that is another issue again.

Fitness to plead and insanity [MacNaughten] are again different things. Fitness to plead involves an ability to grasp the charges against you and the ability to instruct your legal representatives, Staffen's quote is a fitness to pleads issue not an insanity issue.

You can be found unfit to plead and later be found fit and go to trial. If you are found fit to plead you can still go to trial and be found not guilty by reason of insanity and be shipped off to an assylum [rather than gaol or execution].

[John G]

I must admit I've always assumed that an insane man couldn't have been tried or convicted. But by coincidence I'm reading Fenton Bresler's study of the reprieve system, published in 1965, at the moment, and I see that neither of those assumptions is true.

A counter-example is the case of Ronald True in 1922. At his trial, the prison medical officers both gave evidence that he was certifiably insane, but he not only stood trial, but was convicted and sentenced to death (though later reprieved). The prosecution argued successfully that the McNaughton Rules were more stringent than the medical criteria for insanity.

Hello Chris,

Yes, you're absolutely correct. I actually have a law degree and remember studying the MacNaughton Rules, although it was some time ago now! Thus, "at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." (Queen v MacNaughton, 1843)

An example, therefore, maybe a person stabbing a victim with a knife, thinking it's a banana. Or that they suffering from such a cognitive impairment that they are unable to distinguish, objectively, between right and wrong.

It should be noted that disease of the mind is not the same as disease of the brain. Thus, attacking someone whilst sleepwalking could allow for the insanity defence, even though the condition is transitory: see R v Burgess. As would assaulting someone whilst in a state of hyperglycaemia: see R v Hennessy. However, committing a crime whilst in a state of hypoglycaemia would not, as that would be regarded as having an external cause as well a being self-induced or reasonably foreseen i.e. due to a failure to take sufficient food when taking insulin: R v Quick. The same argument would apply if the cause was drinking too much alcohol: R v Quick.

Now in the case of JtR, I think it unlikely that he would be able to raise the insanity defence. This is because he seemed to take precautions against getting caught, i.e. employing strategies to avoid arterial spray. Why would he do that if he didn't realise what he was doing was wrong?

It should be noted that wrong, in this context means legally wrong, not morally wrong. He couldn't therefore argue that he considered morally justified to kill prostitutes, even though he knew such acts were illegal. In R v Windle a man killed his wife by giving her 100 aspirins because she kept threatening suicide. However, he clearly knew what he was doing was illegal because he said: "I suppose they will hang me for this."

Nonetheless, I do think that there might be a fitness to plead issue. Thus, it might be argued that Kosminski, or whoever the suspect was, may not have been insane at the time the crimes were committed, but that his mental state has now deteriorated to the point where he would be considered unfit to plead. The leading case is R v Pritchard (1836), where Anderson B set out the criteria for a jury to consider when determining a defendant's sanity:

"There are three points to be enquired into.:- first, whether the prisoner is mute or malice or not; secondly, whether he can plead to the indictment or not; thirdly, whether he is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of proceedings in the trial so as to make a proper defence-to know that he might challenge any of you [the jury] to whom he may object-and to comprehend the details of the evidence, which in a case of this nature must constitute a minute investigation."

[PaulB]

PaulB ,
I am not arguing against anything.I am stating an opinion.That opinion is that if an identification took place that identified Jack the ripper,and a police officer was present,an arrest was warranted,and would have been made.There could be no guarantee on releasing such a person,even to his family,that he would not kill again.In addition,arrest would give the authorities time to have him certified and committed to an institution,if trial was decided against.Many persons coming under suspicion during the ripper killings were arrested.There has been nothing printed,that I am aware of,that any of those came close to being identified,as Kosminski was reported to have been.So why should he be treated differently.So yes,the thinking that such an identification did not take place is certainly valid at this point in time,and equal to any suggestion that it did.
I do not need a knowledge of Victorian police proceedures,or ask Monty to state what I did.Police then as now could arrest on reasonable suspicion.and I doubt very strongly,that any Victorian police officer would have shirked that responsibility, if faced with evidence that identified Jack the Ripper.
As for research, whats your point.You think I Don't.

Okay, you are stating an opinion not presenting an argument. I think that's a very nit-picky point, but I'm happy to ecknowledge that it is an opinion. So, it is your opinion that had the police been present then an arrest would have been warrented. Nobody is arguing against that opinion, so why are you stating and re-stating it?

Furthermore, your argument has been addressed. It is suggested that the police released the suspect in order to firm up their case and persuade the witness to give evidence. Remember, once an arrest was made the police would have been compelled to bring charges within a specified time or release the suspect, and it was almost Anderson's mantra that more unsolved murders wuld have been solved if the British police had the powers of the French, who could hold someone almost indeefinitely whilst they built their case. So maybe the British police had already held the suspect as long as they were allowed.

I didn't say that your opinion wasn't valid, I said that the ramifications of explainin why Anderson and Swanson said the suspect had beenidentified when he hadn't made such a possibility very remote one. But you appear to be convinced, so there really isn't any point in discussing it further.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes. But it does surprise me that someone certifiably insane could be fit to stand trial.

But in order for anyone to stand trial sane, or insane, there has to be the evidence to first charge them. The arguing about certifiably insane or not surely starts thereafter.

There is no evidence, because we know that no witness ever saw the crimes being committed. At level best if either Lawende or Schwartz identified the person they saw with the victims prior to their death. I would suggest that as that stands on its own would not be enough to ever get anyone charged.

The Met were supposed to have instigated this ID and so their witness if it did take place could only have been Schwartz. But if they were so sure in the first instance, sure enough to go to all this trouble then why did they not involve the city police and take Lawende with them after all two positive id`s would perhaps given them the corroboration they needed.

No records from City police corroborating such an ID and after all I am sure in any event they would have wanted to be involved even if they had subsequently carried out their own ID

Answers as to why because it never took place in the way it has been suggested. Aaron Kosminski has been wrongly looked upon as a prime suspect based mainly on the questionable marginalia entry, which if written by Swanson was recorded after Macnaghten had eliminated the man name Kosminski previously put forward by him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk