|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 153
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:40 pm: |       |
Does anyone know what the punishment was in 1888 for ATTEMPTED murder? Would it still have been hanging, or just life in prison, or something else altogether?
And, what if the convict was a woman? Would that make it different?
I know that at least a few women were hung, but what about for only attempted murder?
Can anyone help? |
Ally
Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 284
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Man, you know clicking on to this topic I had completely different expectations. I was thinking a poll or a survey at the very least.
I don't think people convicted of attempted murder would have been hanged. But I really couldn't say about hung.
 |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:24 pm: | |
Hi Kris,
I am afraid I don't know exactly how the law stood in 1888, but the following extract from the annals of Chelmsford Jail may help
On 25th March 1851 the double execution took place of Sarah Chesham and Thomas Drory. Drory’s victim was the daughter-in-law of an old servant of his father who was expecting his child. She was strangled in a field after she arranged to meet him at Doddinghurst to ask him to marry her. Forty-two year-old Chesham had previously been acquitted of poisoning two of her own children and another child between 1845-47. She met her end after being convicted for attempted murder by poisoning her husband, Richard, with arsenic at Clavering. Between 700 and 1,000 people watched the double executions
Also bear in mind that the last woman to be hung for murder in the UK was Ruth Ellis in, I think, the 1950's
Best Regards,
John Savage |
Jack Traisson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 8:16 pm: | |
In Britain during 19th century offences such as theft were still capital crimes. For attempted murder, it would depend on the circumstances and the people involved. If the Lord of the Manor hit a servant over the head with a poker, injuring him, it would not he a hanging offence. If the servant hit the Lord of the Manor over the head with a poker, absconding with a couple shillings, he would most likely be hanged for attempted murder and theft.
Like Ally, I thought this was going to be about something different. So, please allow me to share a limerick, which, in all likelihood, belongs on A.P.'s poetry thread.
A dashing, fine fellow named Young
On the gallows stood, hooded and strung.
Though everyone saw
A miscarriage of law,
The ladies liked how he was hung.
Cheers, |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 739
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 6:45 am: | |
Hi Kris,
In 1889, Florence Maybrick was tried and convicted of poisoning her husband to death using arsenic, and she was sentenced to hang. Before the sentence was due to be carried out, however, the conviction for murder was changed to one of attempted murder, because it had not been established that arsenic poisoning was the cause of death. (James may even have died from withdrawal symptoms.)
Florie served 15 years in prison, which I believe may have been longer than she would have served had she been charged and tried for that offence in the first place. There were also unconfirmed rumours of a pregnancy, which led to further speculation that this had helped keep the rope away from her pretty neck.
Rumour also had it that people only wanted to see Florie hang because she liked to see how others were hung. 
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 655
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Hmmm, I see others had the same thoughts about this thread as me when they read the title.
I'm curious why Florence Maybrick didn't hang for attempted murder and yet Sarah Chesham did. I happen to believe that Florence was innocent completely anyway and maybe after some consideration it was decided that she was probably innocent but they felt they couldn't go public with saying there was a mistake and so gave her only 15 years. Just a thought.
Caz, you also answered a question I was going to ask. I was about to ask what would happen if the person was pregnant, surely they wouldn't kill them as this would be killing an innocent baby for a crime their mother committed.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 741
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:33 pm: | |
Hi Sarah,
I assume the law with regard to sentencing must have changed between the two cases, because it was the downgrading (albeit highly irregular and possibly unprecedented) of Florie’s offence to attempted murder that officially saved her from the gallows.
The pregnancy rumours were never confirmed in any case, and there certainly wouldn’t have been any joint decision of ‘probable complete innocence’ leading to her long prison sentence, although individually, and beyond the confines of judge and jury, there were huge differences of opinion about the strength of the evidence against her.
And as I say, I believe the 15 years she served was actually considered excessive, even by the standards of the day, for the crime she was finally convicted of committing.
Petitions for the early release of the adulteress were met by a firm 'over our dead body' from Queen Victoria, so she had to wait until Eduardo VII sat on the throne before she was finally through slopping out.
Love,
Caz
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 283
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Hi Caz, The title is a hoot.I"ve often wondered whether the ripper was compensating for something he lacked and this thread has set up a new train of thought on what was behind or [whoops-in f r o n t of] it all? Whoops again-am I "off topic" again? might have to go to the dunce column for a while.
Best Nats |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
Hi Nat,
Yes, I do sometimes think Jack felt very inadequate and out of control around live female specimens (and probably male ones too, to a lesser extent), and that the only woman he could really get to lord it over would be a very dead one. By picking on the most vulnerable and easily available types in society, he could get them dead nice and fast, with little trouble, then really let rip and dominate all hell out of them.
The immediate high from feeling such power over the traditionally ‘weaker’ sex would probably be followed by the depressing realisation of just how shallow and temporary his only reliable form of domination was. Where to next, after Mary Kelly had only ‘allowed’ this normally inadequate fellow into her home and – literally – into her heart, because she hoped he was a paying customer who was not about to slit her throat?
Let’s away to the ‘off topic’ dunce column then, shall we, where we can compare how we like ‘em hung and dominated. Great to meet you at the C&D, by the way.
Love,
Caz
|
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 295
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Hi Caz-brilliant post that!Now we are really getting to the"bottom" of it.This is exactly how I see him---desperate to dominate and needing to have them exactly where he wanted them-no messing
and no joking either about "Mr Teenie Weenie"etc.
And its why I still reckon that the killings were about sex and domination even if he blew his mind acting out his fantasies eventually and either killed himself or ended up in the loony bin.
Interesting thats how we see him Caz---maybe its a woman"s instinct!
Oh and yes do lets away to the dunces column if its more fun!
I"m off now for a few days-I"ll be reading up on all the posts over the weekend .
Have a good time!
Best Natalie |
I Sawyer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 3:39 am: | |
Florence Maybrick was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The Home Secretary then granted her a reprieve and she served fifteen years imprisonment for that murder conviction.
The penalty for attempted murder was life imprisonment but Mrs. Maybrick served her sentence for the murder charge she had been found guilty of, not for attempted murder. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 749
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 5:50 am: | |
I Sawyer (trouble is, I didn’t – see yer comin’, that is  ),
Many apologies if I got that wrong then.
What was the reprieve for? Was she pregnant after all? I thought there had to be a good – and official - reason for a reprieve.
Love,
Caz
PS I’m sure I recognise your writing style from somewhere.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 750
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 6:04 am: | |
Hi again,
In Victorian Murderesses, by Mary S Hartman, Hartman writes that the home secretary’s peculiar explanation [for the reprieve, was] that although the prosecution had demonstrated that Florence had administered arsenic with intent to murder her husband (it had not), there was reasonable doubt that arsenic had in fact killed him (there was).
Seems pretty clear to me.
Love,
Caz
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 672
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 6:20 am: | |
Caz,
Sorry if this sounds stupid but I must be having a dunce day. So is that saying basically that the arsenic didn't kill him. So what do they think did? I don't personally think that Florence did kill her husband or even attempted to kill him but that's my view and no on topic here.
Sarah |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 754
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 9:05 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
They didn’t find enough arsenic in Maybrick’s dead body to be certain beyond reasonable doubt that he was murdered by Florie giving him arsenic.
So no one knows to this day, beyond reasonable doubt, what actually caused his death. As I said previously, withdrawal from arsenic (he was almost certainly a hopeless addict, and may not have had access to his personal supply in the days leading up to his death) can apparently prove fatal, so this is one option.
Love,
Caz
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 862
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 1:10 pm: | |
Well girls I’m afraid I’m going have to fluff my petticoats at you regarding the portrait of Jack that is being painted here: dominating, cruel and a need for power and control.
Sorry ladies, but we are talking about an individual here whose only known contact with society was the senseless slaying and mutilation of a number of prostitutes with whom he had no sexual contact whatsoever.
He was not a man who frequented Soho ‘dancing’ bars and stuffed dollar notes down the scanty thongs of pole dancers and then had sex with the girls, which is the type of individual we see in these posts.
He was a Peter not a Ted.
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
AP,
"...mutilation of a number of prostitutes with whom he had no sexual contact whatsoever."
We don't know that - and sexual contact doesn't need to mean penetration or molestation of the bodies. Technically, the mutiliations of the genitals in some of the cases qualify as "sexual contact" in a forensic psychiatrical sense.
I will, however, agree with you that he didn't frequent the dancing bars. He may have had a stash of pornography, but I doubt that he was doing anything overtly sexual with anyone except himself and his own fantasies.
B
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
So Brian, what I assume you are saying and thinking is that if I was to walk into Macdonald’s and hurl a large bomb in there and blow everyone and everything to pieces, then it would mean that I like Macdonald’s hamburgers?
There is a world of difference between killing sex and having sex. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2004 - 9:25 pm: | |
I just want to add that the thread began by asking the 1888 punishment for attempted murder in England. The last person to be executed for attempted murder in England was a tramp named Martin Doyle, executed in September 1861 for trying to kill the woman he was travelling with.
He attempted to stone her to death.
Jeff |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:28 am: | |
AP,
No - you've got to seperate the two out. There's a lot of things going into a sexually motivated crime that you don't see in other types of crime. A bombing and a lust killing are two different things.
The point is that for a sexually motivated killer, there is NO difference between killing sex and having sex. The killing is their sexual release. Attacking the genitalia and other sexual organs is part of their fantasy, thus even though there may have been no sexual contact as we would normally consider it, the motive was there.
B |
Michael Raney
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 107
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 12:21 pm: | |
Darn,
I clicked on this thread thinking something so totally different!!!! Oh well, I have never been accused of being the smartest rock in the box.
Mikey |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 525
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
Hi AP
The sexual element of a sex crime is whatever the killer decides is necessary to obtain sexual gratification. If in his mind and in accord with his sexual fantasies a level of control and domination must be exerted over the victim to the point where she is either dead or rendered senseless, than this is what he will do to obtain sexual gratification.
Imagine the 'trophies' the killer takes from the scene. If they are used to facilitate sexual release via masturbation after the act of killing, then the crime is a sex or lust murder. This is true regardless of whether or not he has attempted penetration or other sexual contact at the scene.
There is a reason as to why killers such as Jack immediately render their victims senseless. Complete domination and control are his objectives and they achieve this in a blitz style of attack as soon as they are alone with their victims. The thrusting of the knife into the area near the genitalia is said to be symbolic of sexual motivation.
Most sexual serial killers such as JTR seem to be uncomfortable to the point of being unable to achieve sexual arousal with a living, breathing human being. This is not universally true, but this comes up repeatedly in interviews with sexual serial killers after they have been caught.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree over this point.
All The Best
GA
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Brian
I suppose with a great deal of reluctance I am forced to grudgingly admit that you might perhaps have a vague point.
Na, only joshing you.
It is not unknown for my good self to take to task just about anyone who dares to claim that the crimes of Jack the Ripper were sexually motivated, and it is really about time I rolled out of bed and let someone else enjoy the deep sleep of righteousness.
That doesn’t mean to say that I agree with you, for I don’t, but I should at least allow the idea to breath a bit.
Personally I am still filtering everything connected to the crimes - and many other similar crimes - through my addled mind and have yet to reach definite conclusion in this regard, hence my experimental work on the creative expression thread and elsewhere.
At the moment my brain is telling me that to theorise that the crimes of JtR were sexually motivated - even to the lesser degree that you claim - is diving in at the shallow end of the pool, and we shall bang our heads and probably drown. Better dive into the deep perhaps?
My view is constantly changing thanks to the fine influence of people like your good self.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 868
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 1:47 pm: | |
Gary
The same goes for you, I enjoy your posts and your influence on the subject, but you are right we must agree to disagree… for now.
I hope and trust that in the due course of time, some of you will move over to my line of thought, or alternatively that I will move into your line of thought, but for the moment I am more than happy diving in the deep end while you lot bang your heads on the bottom of the shallow end.
No disrespect meant or intended.
As I think you probably know, rather than drawing on the experience of studies of killers of this nature - which I have done for many long year - I now tend to base my observations on the basic behaviour of animals - including primates and including man - when confined to an artificial environment where their normal instincts and emotions are squashed by deprivation of normal natural conditions. The Whitechapel district of the LVP was an entire melting pot of conflicting human emotion and instinct, on the one hand society was pulling its members towards a utterly civilised world where the very mention of sex or sexual behaviour was absolutely taboo, and then on the other hand a chap could wander down Aldgate High Street and have casual and demonstrative sex with four ladies for a shilling.
From what lofty pulpit to what dirty gutter in the space of a single heart beat?
The entire Victorian attitude to sex was ‘fight or flight’, fear or joy, the system allowed for no power base built up upon such vague thoughts as the domination of women - for women were already and totally dominated in the LVP - or the control of four penny whores - for the four penny whores were already controlled by the dreadful circumstances of conditions in Whitechapel at that time - and it probably never occurred to any Whitechapel chap of the LVP to thrust his knife into a woman and consider it his penis because when he thrust his knife into someone - which he did commonly - he fully intended killing that person and it had absolutely nothing to do with his sexual feelings.
I do fear that just like many others on these boards that you give to Jack motives, emotions and instincts that may well be present in the mind of serial killers in our modern age but were certainly not present in the fight or flight of the LVP.
Then, my dear chap, it was all about fear.
|
I Sawyer
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 20, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
By 1840 execution had been reserved by practice only for murder. The Martin Doyle case was a solitary exception that involved an instance of particular atrocity.
Doyle despite being a bit of a scholar who could read and write quite well was extremely lazy and led a nomadic life, wandering the road. In the summer of 1860 Jane Brogine left her husband as she was attracted to Doyle, who was younger than the husband. For about a year he had no regular work and things became increasingly hard for the couple. She told him he would have to get work to keep them.
In May 1861 they set out for Newcastle-under-Lyme in Staffordshire. The weather was rainy and he was tired of the woman's calls upon him to get work. They left Holmes Chapel via Linley Lane toll-gate and it began to rain again. They sheltered under a tree and he took the chance to dispose of the woman. He left her and returned a few minutes later with a large jagged stone that he threw at her head, felling her. He jumped on her chest and knelt over her grasping her by the throat. She pleaded for mercy and he laughed at her. He then took up the stone again and beat her head and face with it causing severe wounds. She appeared to be lifeless and he got up saying, "Now you are done." He noticed she was still breathing and jumped on her chest again. He took up the same stone and hammered her head again. He said, "Jane, say no more. I intend to have your life. I came for it and I will have it." He renewed the blows until she again appeared lifeless. He climbed off the body and left the scene. She had amazingly remained conscious until he left and she then fell into a faint. Reviving a while later she heard a cart approaching and crawled up the bank and into the road. The occupants of the cart carried her to the nearest village where medical assistance was called and her injuries were attended to. She appeared to have twelve life-threatening head wounds, with the bone exposed and a star fracture of the skull. In all there were twenty one head and face wounds. For a long time she hovered between life and death.
Doyle was found and arrested. He freely admitted his crime stating he had tried to kill the woman as she had infected him with a certain complaint. He was tried at Chester Assizes before Justice Crompton. Jane Brogine appeared in court in August still in an appalling state, her head, face and neck bandaged, and suffering from her wounds that were being attended to by a doctor. Doyle cross-examined her and he extracted from her a confession of 'gross immorality' and that she had been affected by a venereal disease which she had given to her husband. He, nevertheless, had been aware she was a prostitute and shared the money she received from men. The Judge reprimanded him for his callous questioning of the poor woman but he continued to do so. He asked her no questions relative to the charge he faced. She fainted and was carried from the court. Three blood-stained stones were produced and Doyle picked one of them up and said, "That's the one I done it with."
The jury found him guilty of wounding with intent to murder and sentence of death was passed by the Judge, who stated that it was "The most atrocious crime I ever knew." He added that he thought that the woman may still die from her wounds.
The Secretary of State declined to recommend a reprieve and Doyle was executed at Chester on 27 August 1861. There can be no doubt that the appalling and barbarous nature of Doyle's crime was the reason that this unusual sentence was passed.
In 1861 the Criminal Law Consolidation Act was passed and the number of capital offences was then reduced to four:-
High treason
Murder
Piracy with violence
Incendiarism in state dockyards
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
