|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1596
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 1:48 pm: |       |
Without any apology I post the full transcript of the trial of one Joseph Fyson for rape upon a child of seven in 1788, as I do believe it is a wonderful insight not only into the sexual attitudes of Londoners a hundred years before Jack came upon the scene, but it also shows us the care and understanding the prosecuting and defending elements had of this issue at this time.
Therefore it is rather naïve of us to imagine that such persons involved in the prosecution and defence of such crimes - a hundred years before Jack - were ignorant or unaware of forensic detail when applied to such crimes.
These boys knew their onions, as you will see.
Of course I am pleased to have found William Mears, Bell Founder of Whitechapel, giving evidence on behalf of the ‘gent’ accused of raping the child, but I am less than pleased to see a ‘gent’ walking free from court after confessing the crime to the father and police officer, and then offering the father a couple of guineas to keep quite about it.
The trial is an education for us all.
Original Text:
496. JOSEPH FYSON was indicted for that he, not having the fear of God before his eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, on the 22d day of June last, in and upon one Kitty Sweetman, a woman child, under the age of ten years, to wit, of the age of seven years, did make an assault, and her feloniously and wickedly did know and abuse.
(The Witnesses examined apart.)
JACOB SWEETMAN sworn.
I am father of this child.
What age is this child? - She is six years and eight months, seven years old the 27th of October.
Is the child capable of knowing the nature of an oath? - No, I really think she is not.
Is she a quick or backward child of her age? - She is very quick, very artful.
But not of knowledge enough you think to know the nature of an oath? - I do not think she is.
Do you know any thing of this business of your own knowledge? - No further than the prisoner being a very intimate acquaintance; he took the child out on the Sunday, in the afternoon, last Sunday was a week, I lodged in his house for some considerable time before this, not now; he took her out about half past two, as near as we imagined, and she came home between five and six, he always sent her home by herself; she would come home when he put her into the way, she had been out divers times, he frequently asked my wife to let him take her out, he knows the child better than I do myself, she came home between five and six, I did not observe any thing was the matter with her, she said nothing at all; on Wednesday in the evening my wife was looking out the foul clothes for washing, and she saw the child rubbing herself at bed time, I was in bed, in the same room, and she says Kitty, what is the matter with you? she thought the child might be chased; Oh, mammy, says she, I am so wet you cannot think, and my wife took up her clothes, and found her thift in as terrible a condition as could be, and she said, she was afraid she was ruined; my wife shewed me the linen, and I said, I really think the child has the foul disease upon her, it had that appearance; I observed a very great running, and a very great stiffness upon it.
Did you examine the person of the child? - After I had taken the prisoner into custody, I did, but not before; I took him into custody on Thursday last, about twelve, that was the next day, I went to the prisoner where he was at work; I said Mr. Fyson, I want to speak with you; and the man was ready to sink into the earth; oh, says he, Mr. Sweetman, I am sorry for any thing I have committed; says he, Mr. Sweetman, a guinea or two shall not be deficient; pray do not mention it to any body; says I, how came you to use the baby in that manner?
Had you said any thing to him? - I said, Mr. Fyson, I am very sorry the affair should happen, you doated on the child so, more than I did myself, I charged him with the action, says he, I handled the girl, I cannot say what possessed me to do
See originalit; I really do not know; says I, Mr. Fyson, it is not a guinea or two will satisfy me, I will have you before a magistrate, so come along; says he, Mr. Sweetman, I'll follow you with all my soul; and he went with me out of the shop, he wanted to go over to the Horse and Windmill; no, says I, and I delivered him into the officer's hands, he confessed it to the officer, I heard him; says he, I am very sorry for the affair, I cannot deny but I am guilty of the matter.
What matter? - Of the injury he had done the child, he said, he had handled the child.
Did he ever say any thing more? - No, we took him before the justice immediately when he was examined I insisted upon it that the child was foul, he denied it intirely; Mr. Wilmot sent for Mr. Brown, he could not come for a considerable time, and with a deal of patience, he came, then he had the man examined in court, and found him to be foul; Mr. Wilmot said, you villain, where did you get this disease? says he, I caught it of the prosecutor's wife about six weeks ago.
Was that true! - No Sir, my wife said, if the gentlemen will withdraw, I will be examined, she was within an hour or two of being delivered; she was delivered last Sunday, she was here on Saturday all day, the midwife is not here; here is a woman here, that was at her delivery.
Court. If I had known as much of the case as I do now, I would have put off the trial to the next sessions; did the man ever acknowledge to have done any thing else to the child but handling her? - No, no further; I went last Sunday, and the child shewed me the place where the affair was committed, upwards of two miles off.
Mr. Peatt, prisoner's counsel. You seem so candid, Sir, I shall only ask you a single question. The child was out of your company, and out of your house? - Yes, I was at home all the time.
She could not have been at home without your knowing of it? - No.
You said nothing more to the prisoner at first, than what you have mentioned? - No.
JOSHUA BROWN sworn.
I am a surgeon; this child was brought to me on Thursday morning last, I examined it, and thought there were some symptoms of a venereal complaint.
Were the symptoms such as enabled you to pronounce with any certainty? - I thought it really was so; I thought there were some symptoms of a local complaint, it had all the symptoms of a venereal complaint, not a lues, but a gonorrhea.
Might no other cause of inflammation produce the same symptoms? - There might such things happen.
Have you, either then or since, been able to ascertain with any certainty, whether it is a venereal complaint, or might it proceed from other causes? - I have often known children to have similar complaints, and I have found afterwards that the parents had something of that complaint upon them.
Are you able to say with certainty from whatever cause the venereal complaint proceeded, that the complaint is venereal? - According to some symptoms.
But I ask whether all the symptoms might not be occasioned from inflammations proceeding from other causes? - They might have originated from other causes.
Would not a greater length of time have enabled you to pronounce for certainty, whether the child's complaint was venereal or not? - It might so, I never saw it but that once.
Then probably from your examination, you are not able to pronounce with certainty, that the complaint is venereal? - I had only a slight investigation of her.
Let you have seen her once, or twenty times; let your investigation have been slight or minute; are you able to pronounce this for certainty, that the complaint is venereal? - I really thought it to be material.
Do you think so still? - Certainly.
See originalAre you sure in your opinion? - I cannot be sure.
Would not an inflammation in those parts, arising from any other accidental cause, produce the same appearances, from over exertions; suppose now for instance, from very violent exercise of any kind, the child had been hurt in those parts, might not the same symptoms appear? - They might.
Then it would depend on time and observation to ascertain, whether the complaint was venereal or not? - I have often observed complaints of a similar kind, I never could account for it, but some times I found out that the parents had a venereal complaint, and it might have been contracted from the parents.
Were those infallible symptoms, or such as might arise from any other cause? - They certainly are doubtful symptoms, but I really supposed it to be venereal.
Do you give a certain or a doubtful opinion? - A doubtful opinion, but my opinion is, that it is venereal.
Did you afterwards attend at the justices? - Yes.
Did you examine the prisoner? - Yes.
Has he any venereal complaint? - He has some symptoms of a venereal complaint likewise.
Are his symptoms more or less certain than those of the child? - They are local; but his is certainly a venereal complaint.
Was you there when the prisoner said he had got it from the prosecutor's wife? - Yes, the woman was present; she said she would suffer herself to be examined; she was not examined.
Did you hear this man say any thing what intercourse he had had with his child? - Not in the least.
Court. Does there happen to be any medical gentleman besides Mr. Brown in court.
Prosecutor. Mr. Ball I understand is a gentleman of skill.
Court to Mr. Ball. Will you have the goodness, Sir, to withdraw with Mr. Brown into the Lord Mayor's parlour, and examine this unfortunate child?
Mr. Ball. Yes, my Lord.
ANN PERKINS sworn.
I live in Well's-street, Mile-end Town, with Mr. and Mrs. Sweetman, I know the child, she sleeps with me every night.
Did the child complain of any disorder before last Sunday week? - No, I do not know that I ever observed any thing on the child in my life, before last Wednesday morning, I did not observe the child's linen before then discoloured or stiffened, last Wednesday morning about seven or eight, I was getting up, and dressing myself I saw something on the child's shift, says I, Kitty what is this? says she, it is the child has puked over me, that is the child I have in my arms, then I went out to work, and thought no more of it.
Did you examine the person of the child at all? - No.
Then you know nothing more but what the child told you? - No.
Mr. Peatt. Did the child ever complain of any ill treatment from the prisoner? - No never, but always was extremely fond of him.
Was the child kept pretty strictly at home? - No Sir, I cannot say but she is a very forward fond child.
She runs about and plays with great boys? - I do not know, I go out at seven in the morning, and come home at night.
Does she not run about the neighbourhood with a strict attention of her parents? - Yes, she does.
And is some times hours together without the knowledge of the parents? - She is.
Court. Did you ever observe any thing particular in the prisoner's behaviour to the child? - No Sir, but always very fond of her.
(The Surgeons ordered in.)
See originalDAVID BALL sworn.
You have examined this child? - I have.
Has she the venereal complaint? - Yes.
Is it manifestly so? - Clearly so.
Court to Mr. Brown. Are you of the same opinion? - I am.
Are your doubts removed now? - Yes, it is very clear.
Mr. Peatt to Mr. Brown? Is not it possible for a venereal taint to be got or acquited in different ways than from a man's penetrating a child or woman? - I have observed that children have had it in that manner without the least penetration.
Court. It certainly may, and clearly by contact, without penetration.
Mr. Peatt. It may be got by sitting on a seat at a necessary, or by touching a child with his finger? - It may be.
Court. You have had now two opportunities of examining this child; is there any appearance of laceration? - Not in the least, no laceration of the parts.
Then you perceive from the appearance of the child's person this crime could not have been committed, could she have been penetrated by a grown-up man? - I think not.
Court to Mr. Ball. (The same question.) - Why my Lord there is certainly no appearance of laceration, nor should I hardly have supposed there could have been any, I do not see any thing like that laceration having been made, nor any wound that has been healed, it seems to me quite unaccountable.
Mr. Peatt to Mr. Ball. Would it not in a child of that age if penetrated by an adult be exceedingly visible? - I should apprehend so.
HENRY BANFORD sworn.
On the 26th of this month the father of the child applied to me with a warrant to take up this man, I went with him to Whitechapel to a public house; I told the prisoner I had a warrant against him for injuring this man's child; the father said in my hearing to the prisoner, how could you injure my child? the prisoner said I hope you will forgive me; I was in liquor, but I hope you will forgive me.
Did the prisoner express more particularly what he had done to the child? - He said he had put his hand to the child's private parts.
Did he confess any thing further? - No.
Mr. Peatt. Was the father present when that passed? - Yes.
Did any thing pass from the father to induce any conversation of that kind? - Nothing but the charge he made.
PRISONER's DEFENCE.
It is eight weeks ago next Thursday, since this prosecutor's wife gave me the foul disease.
Court. That is no excuse for the crime with which you are now charged.
MARGARET SMALL sworn.
I have known the prisoner for about two years, I work at my needle; I am not a married woman; he has a very good character.
What has been his general conduct as to decency of behaviour? - I have been with him half a year, I never saw or heard one immodest action or word, nor any indecency in his conduct.
ELIZABETH PLATT sworn.
I have known him four year, I never saw any misconduct in his behaviour or conversation since in my house he has been either to women or children.
MARY TAYLOR sworn.
I keep a chandler's-shop and am a married woman; I have known the prisoner four years.
Is he a man of decent conduct to women? - I never heard to the contrary nor never saw any thing of the kind.
WILLIAM MEARS sworn.
I am a bell founder, I have known the prisoner six or seven years, he has worked
See originalfor me that time; I never saw him indecent in any respect, not even in his conversation; he behaved with decency and propriety in every respect.
The Jury upon giving a verdict guilty of the attempt, and being informed that they must either convict or acquit the prisoner under the indictment, which was for the complete crime, and not for an attempt, the foreman pronounced the word Guilty; upon which the learned Recorder thus addressed them: - Gentlemen, In order to find the prisoner guilty, you must be satisfied on your oaths, that the prisoner has completely entered the body of this child, and has had the same knowledge of her that any of you have had of your wives; I feel some anxiety that you should clearly understand this case, and the question which you are to determine; leaving the determination of it to you. The verdict which you first delivered in, I confess, appeared to me to be a declaration of the truth of the fact according to the evidence; it appears that this man has been guilty of a very gross and brutal attempt, to do an act, which neither has been nor could have been completed; if that is so; if that is your opinion of the fact, (for you are to judge of the fact and not me, I am only to tell you my opinion of the law) I can tell you with confidence, that if your opinion of the evidence is what you have now stated, you are bound to find him not guilty; you do not acquit your consciences and your oaths as Jurors, if believing he has been guilty of the attempt, you find him guilty of the complete charge; but if you are certain from the evidence that he is guilty of this complete crime, you will declare so by your verdict.
The Jury immediately found a verdict, of course
NOT GUILTY.
Court to Prisoner. Although I could not help feeling some anxiety about the event of this trial under this indictment, because I always wish the law to be administered dispassionately, yet till this very respectable jury had declared their verdict, it was not proper for me to say any thing of the motives which excited so great a doubt in their minds, who would not have entertained any doubt under other circumstances; (but the nature of good men's minds is so much offended at that conduct that has been clearly committed by you) and my opinion of these gentlemen is not altered by their finding that verdict; and I am happy in knowing that the consequence of that verdict is not a total impunity for your offence, for the law prescribes a different punishment although under a different prosecution for the offence that has been proved against you; and these gentlemen having done their duty, and repressed those honourable feelings which led them to be under some little danger of going beyond their duty, I shall certainly take the opportunity of bringing you to that punishment which you deserve; therefore I shall certainly order you (the Grand Jury being discharged) to be detained till the next sessions, in order to be prosecuted for the attempt. This poor man, the prosecutor, cannot afford the expences; I shall therefore make him a liberal allowance. Allow the prosecutor five guineas for the expence of this prosecution, and bind him and his witnesses over, to appear and give evidence on a bill of indictment against the prisoner, before the Grand Jury at the next sessions, and let the prisoner stand committed till the next sessions.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 4:41 pm: | |
Ap,
that is truly awful.
Jenni |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1171
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
Hi AP,
A vivid account of a horrendous crime, it just goes to show that sick mentality and sexual perversions have always been evident in society.
Richard. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Thanks Richard & Jenni
I was more struck by the attention to forensic detail in this old sexual crime, and how prosecution and defence were both well aware of physical and other evidence in such circumstances.
It sort of bared the soul of modern critics who claim that the police or medics of 1888 didn't know what they were talking about.
As I said before these guys knew their onions 100 years before Jack struck.
The case shows we have to be careful. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Hi A.P.
I really think you're right and that sometimes we "moderns" take an arrogantly dismissive attitude towards the Victorians which may not be warranted.
I'm transcribing an article from the 2 Oct 1888 Morning Advertiser for Stephen which discusses an article on homicidal mania. Some of the ideas discussed are whacky, like murderers having the brains of savage animals (which was generally dismissed in 1880). But also mentioned is the connection between childhood animal cruelty and serial killing as well as serial killers having deceptively calm exteriors. I'm not up on psychology, but that seems to be evidence of forward-thinking which I think is associated with mid to late 20th century research (don't know if I'm right about that).
It's a lengthy article that will eventually be up in the Press section, so I won't duplicate it here.
Cheers,
Dave |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 1:09 pm: | |
Thanks Dave
your comments are entirely supported by the day I have spent reading through criminal trials of the Victorian age at the Old Bailey.
It seems the Victorians were indeed very well-informed, one trial I have just finished involved a 14 year old boy who was up for murder.
The judge, jury and both counsel all took careful time to ascertain the 'child's' attitude towards right and wrong, and indeed if he knew the distinction between a right and a wrong. Great time was spent on this, as well as making sure the boy understood what a 'lie' was.
Although found guilty the boy was allowed mercy and escaped the death penalty.
But yes you are right. We moderns are far too arrogant and dismissive to the Victorians who were daily involved in such crimes. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Hi, AP
In cases involving children, I guess knowledge of right and wrong would have been important to ascertain; there appears to have been a law. During the trial of Robert Husband, age 11, for the Ripper copycat murder of Percy Knight Searle (Press Project, Times 20 & 21 Dec 1888), Justice Stephen whipped out his copy of "Digest of Criminal Law" for the jury: "No act done by any person over seven and under 14 is a crime, unless it be shown affirmatively that such person had sufficient capacity to know that the act was wrong." In Husband's case, they let him off (a puzzle).
Cheers,
Dave |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 434
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 9:28 pm: | |
Hi AP,
The McNaughton Rule for determining legal insanity was established in 1843, and all English-speaking countries I know of use some variation of it to this day. The idea of knowing the difference between right and wrong goes back at least that far, if not farther. The idea must have been current for a while before that, if not universally accepted, for people to think of it when creating the new guidelines.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
d g cornelius
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 12:17 am: | |
Inspector Norder:
For the history of legal insanity please also consult Isaac Ray's "Treatise on the Medical Jurisprudence" [Boston, 1838, and still in print]. Ray, a physician, displayed remarkable sophistication for his time, or for ours, in delineating the subtle spectrum of mental illness, in an attempt to refute the prevailing simplistic definitions of jurists regarding responsibility for criminal actions. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
