Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 10:57 am |        |
Hey All:
This is probably a stupid question, but I don't ever recall hearing of any Crown or prosecutor's office representative being involved in the JtR case. Was there such a person or persons?
My assumptions may be colored by being both a modern and an American but it seems logical to me that at some point in this JtR case, legal/prosecutorial questions must have arisen.
In the U.S., the police are authorized to make arrests based on their own initiative and knowledge. However, they cannot hold a person beyond a limited amount of time or bring them to a judge/trial without the intermediaries of lawyers for the prosecution/state/Crown(?).
If the 1888 police ever had legal questions, whether they be evidentiary questions regarding a specific suspect, or general questions on procedure, who did they go to for answers?
The Inquests into Cause of Death would provide us with one source of legal advice. But did these same men have the authority to advise and consent on daily legal matters? It seems beyond their scope.
Might be interesting to try and figure who amongst the Crown's prosecutors might have been peripherally involved in advise and consent issues. Maybe he or they left some papers behind? Shedding light on our known suspects? Perhaps throwing out a new name?
Forgive my ignorance of English law and police/prosecution procedures.
Yaz |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 10:54 pm | |
Yaz,
Are you Juwesh?
Happy Passover!
David |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 11:19 pm | |
Hey David:
No, sorry, I'm not Juwesh (not even Jewish!). I'm your basic heathen.
Nice to see you're still here. Have you published your book yet? And why do you want to know if I'm Jewish (or Juwesh), if I may ask?
Yaz |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 12:54 am | |
G'day Yaz,
Great to see you back mate. It's been a long time and you've been missed a great deal.
Take care.
Jules |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 05:12 am | |
Hi Jules, Yaz,
This is like time travel!
Great to see you both posting again.
Jules,
Thanks for the latest Ripperoo and keep up the great work with Lea and friends.
Lots of love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 05:59 am | |
Yaz - Back to your original question, lost in the thicket of greetings and religious affinity inquisitions...
I think the person called in in 1888 would be the 'treasury counsel' appointed by the Home Office to prosecute a serious crime. Like any other counsel instructed to take a case, he could give an opinion that his client had no case, or little chance of winning one. And that would almost certainly terminate the proceedings. There would have to be a charge brought before counsel was involved, however, and as we know, nobody was ever charged with being the Ripper. ("'Cos David Cohen was already certified insane and so unfit to plead," pipes up the monomaniac bore Fido). I don't think the Director of Public Prosecutions as an intermediary Home Office Appointee to decide whether the police should go ahead with serious charges or not came into being until the early 20th century, around the time when miscarriages of justice led to the call for a Court of Appeal. (And of course, the Crown Prosecution Service, or 'Criminals' Protection Society' taking all serious decisions out of the hands of the supposedly corrupt and venomous coppers was a disastrous creation of the 1980s after the still more disastrous miscarriages of justice in several IRA bombing cases).
Jules - Can I throw back to you a question I placed on the boards when I first entered them several months ago. In 1999 an Australian correspondent kindly sent me a copy of 'Judaism for Dummies', which I found fascinating as well as useful. When I went to acknowledge it, I found that there was no return address in the parcel in which it came, and I had lost the donor's original letter promising to send it. Leanne was going to try and find whether my benefactor could be traced in the remote Antipodes, but I've still heard nothing, and would really like to thank the person for a very useful and much enjoyed present.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 08:39 am | |
Hey...:
Jules! Thankee and I know..I owe, I owe. Riperoo, I acknowledge publicly, is fantastic.
Caz! I do feel a bit Wellsian being here, but..ah Wells. Hope all is Wells with you and yours.
Martin: Thanks for the answer. Not even the slightest chance some JtR files might have found their way to a 'treasury counsel,' even for a summary from the legal eagles for the HO? Oh Wells. Another pointy-headed brainchild o' mine sees an early dee-mise.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 04:24 pm | |
Yaz - I guess there has to be a slight chance that some Ripper files found their way to a Treasury Counsel for an opinion before charging, and it would be fascinating to see what the brief contained and why it was rejected. I'd be a little surprised if they'd slipped past Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner, though.
The only outside chance is that they might have gone through the Lord Chancellor's Office rather than the Home Office. And Lord Chancellor's files tend to be even harder to get into than (as PRO staff described it to me once when I chased out some closed files from it) 'the notorious box HO144'. Hopefully somebody on the right side of the Atlantic will hotfoot it to Kew and have a look at the catalogues, unless Keith or Stewart can signal us, 'Stop! We've been there!'
All the best
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 05:51 pm | |
Thanks, Martin.
Yaz |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 05:57 pm | |
Yaz,
This is the one week of the year when all of us at this web site are Juwesh.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 07:18 pm | |
Okay.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 05:28 am | |
Don't mench, Yaz. you're welc.
Martin |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 10:28 pm | |
Dear Martin,
I don't know if it means much, but in the 1880s
the leading Treasury Counsel (I believe) was
Sir Henry Poland, who usually led the Crown
prosecutions, sometimes assisted by Sir Charles
Mathews (although Mathews may have come along a
little later in time). Possibly if they have
left private papers there might be a reference.
Jeff (and Happy Passover and Easter to all) |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 08:38 pm | |
Hey All:
I noticed the following when looking at the Eddowes' Inquest transcript here on the Casebook:
"Mr. Crawford, City solicitor, appeared on behalf of the Corporation, as responsible for the police"
None of the other inquests mention a solicitor being present; the coroner seemed to represent the interests of the relevant civic authorities besides the police, who were 'represented' by their own constables/witnesses. Crawford helped question witnesses and also made an unusual(??) suggestion to the coroner and jury.
The A-Z mentions Crawford's presence at the inquest and notes that he said during the inquest, during Lawende testimony regarding details describing the man Lawende saw: "I have special reason for not giving details as to the appearance of this man."
(But in the transcript on the Casebook, all I can find is the following exchange during Lawende's testimony:
"[Coroner] What sort of man was this? - He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same.
Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.
Mr. Crawford (to witness): You have given a description of the man to the police? - Yes.")
Either way, Crawford's presence and his opinions lead me to think he was more involved with Eddowes' case than just helping with the inquest.
Is there still a 'City Solicitor's Office', or some legal office representing the Corporation [of London, I presume]? Maybe some JtR papers are there?
Did the Metropolitan police (I think that's the right term to distinguish them from the City's police jurisdiction) have a corresponding 'Mr. Crawford'?
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 06:56 am | |
I don't know about the City Police, Yaz, but the Met used Messrs Wontner as their solicitors and ultimately the London police work came to be virtually Wontsner's entire work, so that it caused the firm serious damage in the 1930s when Commissioner Lord Trenchard decided to replace them with an in-house solicitor's department (which still exists, though the Crown Prosecution Service has taken responsibility for preparing prosecution cases out of its hands).
Interestingly Dr Robert Anderson, a member of the Irish and Engish bars with an Ll.D., was appointed Assistant Commissioner in part because it was felt that the Commissioner needed someone with legal training at his right hand. Little, if any use was made of Anderson in this respect, however, and the practice was not consistently followed after his retirement.
Martin
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 09:30 am | |
Thanks, Martin...errr, both of you!
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 01:11 pm | |
Another silly question:
Does anyone know if the 1888 police published and circulated their own newsletter, an internal police communication, not meant for public reading?
I've read of something called the "Police Gazette" in a work of fiction set in the 1920s. The Gazette may well be another piece of fiction but the novel reads like an attempt at a police procedural (before there were such things).
Thanks,
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 05:51 am | |
Hi, Yaz:
In reply to a question from Christopher-Michael DiGrazia about whether Britain's Police Gazette was a publicly sold tabloid-type publication as a similarly named scandal sheet in the US was, "Ivor Q. U. Estion" on Thursday, March 23, 2000 at 1:24 am stated: "Not so in the U.K., the Police Gazette was a confidential police publication." I have read that Ostrog was mentioned in the Police Gazette during October 1888 so presumably researchers have been able to find copies of this publication. I hope this information helps!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 09:48 am | |
Thanks, Chris.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 05:43 am | |
Police Gazette carried official internal information (standing orders; promotions; commendations and awards and the like). Interesting Ripper-related facts include 7/6d award to Sgt Thick during the enquiry: reason not given, so it's a guess - was it for finding Pizer? Also weekly allocation of police supervision of weekend marches by the unemployed.
It can be found at Public Records Office. Unfortunately the PRO copy of the invaluable illustrated monthly rogues' gallery of wanted criminals for the period is in such bad condition that it will not be issued. Paul and Keith found Ostrog in a copy at the Met Police Museum in Charlton.
All the best
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:13 am | |
Thanks, Martin...again.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:29 am | |
Just one thing to add - Police Gazette was, of course, the Gazette of the Metropolitan Police and so did not carry material on othe forces (the City Police being of especial interest to us Rippermaniacs).
Martin |
