|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 13, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects:
Later Suspects [ 1910 - Present ]:
Maybrick, James:
Archive through April 13, 1999
Author: Peter Birchwood
Monday, 12 April 1999 - 01:01 pm |        | Bob:
May I tear you away from your more esoteric interests which you've seen fit to regail us with in other places and get on to your latest piece (sorry- message.)
"As far as I can ascertain..." So what proof, if any do you have that Matthews actually said this? The words: "fairly good representation" imply that Levy made up what he thought Matthews would have said and therefore the whole passage you quote is therefore nothing to do with the truth of the case.
You also don't seem to understand that at no point was Florrie charged with a lesser crime. She was charged with murder, convicted of murder and would have hanged except that Matthews used his prerogative and reprieved her. Whether she murdered her husband or no, Florrie was always considered guilty of murder but was reprieved. While she was in prison she was a murderer not an attempted murderer. Clear? She was never (and if I could work out how to do it, that word would be blocked, in italics and double-underlined) found not guilty of murder and your comment on "Any other punishment needs a new charge..." is nonsense. So is your last paragraph. See how polite I am?
Peter. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Monday, 12 April 1999 - 05:55 pm | | Hi All,
Edana, always nice to encounter a fellow brewer. An empty carboy is sad indeed, fermentation capacity is a terrible thing to waste. :-)
Oh yes, the topic. There does seem to be a tradition that JtR used alcohol and may have frequented some of the same pubs as his victims, there are a couple of articles on the Dissertations page to that effect.
One of the articles outlines Inspector Reid's theory that the Ripper was a heavy drinker, so at least one of the policemen who actually worked on the case thought so. Beer and gin seem to have been the most popular drinks of the day, at least among the poor and working classes, so if one accepts that JtR was a drinker, then yes, it's likely he was a beer drinker.
As to the MJK client carrying the pail of beer, I don't think he had anything to do with her killing. I don't have the exact times at hand, but as I recall he was seen by Mary Ann Cox entering MJK's room at ~11:45 PM. If you believe Hutchinson's statement at all, then MJK couldn't have been killed by beer-man. In any event, the official time of death was given as ~4:00 AM, nearly 4 1/2 hours after she was seen with beer-man. Given the typically brief nature of the sort of encounters in which MJK was engaged, it's unlikely beer-man would still have been at the scene. The element of time proximity to the known time of death is just not there.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Julian
Monday, 12 April 1999 - 10:53 pm | | G'day everyone.
Of course Jack was a beer drinker. What bloke isn't? I mean it's a rite of passage for us blokes isn't it. Get legless at a tender age, chunder all over the back seat of your best mates car (and your girlfriend if she happens to be lying on your lap), and wake up feeling groovy ready to do it all over again.
Seriously though, Jack probably was a beer drinker as that's what was readily available for the poorer people of Whitechapel. I believe Rum was a common drink too.
Hey Edana/Jim, do you guys buy the tinned ingredients or make your own?
Jules |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 02:42 am | | Hi Peter,
I am a sworn enemy of Esoteric. Read my piece properly and even you may come to the conclusion that she was found guilty of murder but was reprieved because of GRAVE doubts (that means she was no longer a convicted murderer because if she was, she would have HUNG).
The word 'representive' does not mean he said, word for word, what was written. How do you come to this conclusion? It means that it, as far as I could ascertain, was representive of what Matthew meant and lead to his actions.
I don't need to say that your conclusion over this bit is in the same format as the rest of your post. If you happen to dislike me or not is your buisiness, but if you don't like my posts, don't read them.
If you call your 'piece' polite then I call it poppycock.
See how polite (and non-esoteric), I am.
Bob |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 03:38 am | | Dear Bob C,
I've just noticed your postings on Florrie Maybricks conviction, and if I read you
correctly you seem to be saying that because she did not hang she was not guilty of
murder. I am afraid this is totally wrong.
There have been many convicted murderers who have been sentenced to death but
had their death sentence commuted (off the top of my head I would offer, Edith
Carew, Onufrejczyk, Kitty Byron, James Camb and of course Rattenbury & Stoner)
now just because they did not hang does not mean they were not guilty, and their
sentence remains the same Sentenced to death (commuted).
Why were these sentences commuted, I have no idea but no doubt it is laid down
somewhere. Florence Maybrick was convicted of murder and she died a convicted
murderess, the only thing that can overturn that is a ruling by our appeal court that she
was unjustly convicted, until that happens I'm afraid you will have to accept that
because it is a fact!
There is a lot of confusion about sentences and subsequent appeals. How often have
we read in the papers "Appeal Court proves convicted man innocent!!" This is
nonsense. A British court cannot prove a person innocent - it can only say whether
that person is Guilty or Not Guilty, and that is not the same as whether a person is
innocent or not. We have two main forms of courts in this country to try criminal
cases, Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts. In a magistrates court the decision is
taken by magistrates, in a Crown Court usually by a jury.
There is a certain amount of confusion about what these magistrates and juries are
asked to do, a lot of people think they are there to decide whether or not the accused
did the evil deed. This is not so. Their job is to decide whether or not the prosecution
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did the deed. There have been
many occasions when I in concert with my fellow magistrates have been absolutely
certain in our own minds that the accused is guilty, but have been forced to find for
him because we are also certain the prosecution has not proved its case.
Bear in mind also that many guilty people have been released on appeal, solely for the
reason that the conviction is unsafe - this doesn't mean they didn't do the deed!
all the best
Bob Hinton
PS Another myth about times gone by is when murderers a hundred years ago had
their sentences commuted they rotted in prison. A study of the facts shows that the
average life sentence served by these pople was around thirteen years, not so much
different to what it is today! |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 04:13 am | | Bob, Bob and Peter,
Honestly BobC, I do think Bob H. is right. I think you have probably got into difficulties from the outset by thinking that Levy was actually quoting the Home Secretary, in that outrageous statement, when in fact he was only paraphrasing him. And then you've compounded your problems by a misapprehension of the law.
As Bob H. states with such impressive clarity, a reprieve is not the same as a pardon, or an overturned conviction. Florie was convicted of murder and that conviction remained until her death. Only the sentence was changed (commuted) - from death to life imprisonment.
As I understand it, this was done because at the time they believed a fatal dose of arsenic had to be administered within three or four day of death. And within that prescribed time period, Florie was already under house arrest and unable to administer more poison.
So, even though arsenic was found in her possession, and in the food she had prepared for her husband, the prosecution could not show that this had been admnistered within the requisite time period to account for death. Therefore, as I understand it (please anyone correct me if I'm wrong), there was sufficient question over whether the case had been proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' to justify commuting the death sentence.
Ironically of course, we now know that a person can take anything up to a week or more to die from a fatal dose of arsenic. So the one point that was seen to be in Florie's favour, has now been wiped away.
Bob, your point about whether or not the lady was innocent is still valid, and we had some interesting debate going about it for a while. It's just a separate question to this one.
But let's turn to it for one second:
I am interested to know - how do those who contend that Florie was certainly innocent explain the arsenic in the food that she had been preparing for James?
Is there some other way it could have got there?
Any suggestions?
Take care all
Karoline |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 05:37 am | | Hi Bob,
The discussion is drifting away from the original point, which was the complaints by me against home secretary Henry Matthews and his handling of the affair, but your points are strong enough to call an explanation from me to what I am trying to say (and that, I know, not very well.)
Firstly, I mean that Flo was reprieved (didn't hang) because grave doubts about her guilt as charged existed (i.e. some evidence leading to conviction was found to be unsafe). Having been found guilty, she was indeed convicted as being a murderess, if she had actually killed or not. To be a convicted murderess does not mean that she had killed, but that she had been found guilty of doing it. My statement meant not other than that the grounds for the reprieve showed clearly that the conviction was accepted as being unsound (i.e. it was now recognised that it was not proven by the evidence that she had actually murdered).
It was, in any case, clear that it had become unsafe to have her hanged. The law is absolutely (and properly) clear on this point. A guilt can only be found when proven 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. Only after guilt is so proven, can the punishment be carried out. In Flo's case, this doubt came after the conviction. There begins the difficulty. Had this doubt been recognised before the conviction, she would not have been charged of murder, but maybe a lesser charge, such as attempted murder could have been (in my mind should have been) levied.
As you rightly say, killers have been reprieved for a number of reasons, some not clear to the untrained (e.g. my) eye. Florence however, and that is my point, was reprieved because proper doubt over some of the evidence used to convict her was raised, and not that sentence was reduced because of some circumstance (e.g. Accused blackmailed by victim etc). That means that, although too late to prevent a conviction, it was recognised that she may not have been convicted if these doubts had been raised at her trial. The question then is not if she had done the murder, but if it could have been proved. Were it not proven, then were she not a convicted murderess.
There is a fine line between the two sides. I have (rueful grin) stood before the cadre a number of times for lesser, although grave enough, crimes (Parking, Speeding etc. ) and have had sometimes problems in deciding what or why a conviction/non-conviction had to do with the facts. I got a twenty pound fine in 1970 for doing 44 mph where a 40 mph limit was allowed (Hounslow, nights at 2.00 a.m.) and found not guilty (Swindon, 1977) of speeding for doing 84 mph where 70 was allowed. (I pleaded not guilty to the first, guilty to the second!).
I have even had the displeasure of being wrongfully charged and bailed for theft (Portsmouth, 1978) before at last appearing before the Portsmouth Quarter Sessions and being released on the grounds of no evidence. The way to Quarter Sessions is well known to you and left certain questions as to the qualities of the committing Magistrates. At the Quarter Sessions, the Judge was forced to ask the Prosecution if what they were saying was that they did not believe their own witness? And this before the jury was even sworn in. (You will know what that means). This unhappy episode lead directly to the dismissal of a QC called M.......y for abetting the uttering of false evidence. If you have professional access to these files, it could make interesting reading. (Contact me for more information if you like). Maybe you can now understand a certain sensitivity on my side to guilt or innocence.
We may not convict someone of being a thief, even if we KNOW he is, until it is proven. And when we KNOW he is a thief, but it is not proven, we may maintain that accusation at our peril. I do not know if Flo killed James, or if she even tried to. I am certain from the facts as I can ascertain them that she was wrongfully convicted of murder, because the evidence was not safe enough to convict. If someone is known to have been wrongly convicted, should they still be treated as a criminal just because we still happen to think that they are? That is my charge against Henry Matthews.
A humorous anecdote. My father was asked at the end of the 1950s if her would accept a post as Magistrate at the local Court. He thanked for the honour but refused. He said 'I cannot remain peacefully in judgement of others before me, full knowing on which side of the bench I rightfully belong.'
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 05:40 am | | Hi Bob,
The discussion is drifting away from the original point, which was the complaints by me against home secretary Henry Matthews and his handling of the affair, but your points are strong enough to call an explanation from me to what I am trying to say (and that, I know, not very well.)
Firstly, I mean that Flo was reprieved (didn't hang) because grave doubts about her guilt as charged existed (i.e. some evidence leading to conviction was found to be unsafe). Having been found guilty, she was indeed convicted as being a murderess, if she had actually killed or not. To be a convicted murderess does not mean that she had killed, but that she had been found guilty of doing it. My statement meant not other than that the grounds for the reprieve showed clearly that the conviction was accepted as being unsound (i.e. it was now recognised that it was not proven by the evidence that she had actually murdered).
It was, in any case, clear that it had become unsafe to have her hanged. The law is absolutely (and properly) clear on this point. A guilt can only be found when proven 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. Only after guilt is so proven, can the punishment be carried out. In Flo's case, this doubt came after the conviction. There begins the difficulty. Had this doubt been recognised before the conviction, she would not have been charged of murder, but maybe a lesser charge, such as attempted murder could have been (in my mind should have been) levied.
As you rightly say, killers have been reprieved for a number of reasons, some not clear to the untrained (e.g. my) eye. Florence however, and that is my point, was reprieved because proper doubt over some of the evidence used to convict her was raised, and not that sentence was reduced because of some circumstance (e.g. Accused blackmailed by victim etc). That means that, although too late to prevent a conviction, it was recognised that she may not have been convicted if these doubts had been raised at her trial. The question then is not if she had done the murder, but if it could have been proved. Were it not proven, then were she not a convicted murderess.
There is a fine line between the two sides. I have (rueful grin) stood before the cadre a number of times for lesser, although grave enough, crimes (Parking, Speeding etc. ) and have had sometimes problems in deciding what or why a conviction/non-conviction had to do with the facts. I got a twenty pound fine in 1970 for doing 44 mph where a 40 mph limit was allowed (Hounslow, nights at 2.00 a.m.) and found not guilty (Swindon, 1977) of speeding for doing 84 mph where 70 was allowed. (I pleaded not guilty to the first, guilty to the second!).
I have even had the displeasure of being wrongfully charged and bailed for theft (Portsmouth, 1978) before at last appearing before the Portsmouth Quarter Sessions and being released on the grounds of no evidence. The way to Quarter Sessions is well known to you and left certain questions as to the qualities of the committing Magistrates. At the Quarter Sessions, the Judge was forced to ask the Prosecution if what they were saying was that they did not believe their own witness? And this before the jury was even sworn in. (You will know what that means). This unhappy episode lead directly to the dismissal of a QC called M.......y for abetting the uttering of false evidence. If you have professional access to these files, it could make interesting reading. (Contact me for more information if you like). Maybe you can now understand a certain sensitivity on my side to guilt or innocence.
We may not convict someone of being a thief, even if we KNOW he is, until it is proven. And when we KNOW he is a thief, but it is not proven, we may maintain that accusation at our peril. I do not know if Flo killed James, or if she even tried to. I am certain from the facts as I can ascertain them that she was wrongfully convicted of murder, because the evidence was not safe enough to convict. If someone is known to have been wrongly convicted, should they still be treated as a criminal just because we still happen to think that they are? That is my charge against Henry Matthews.
A humorous anecdote. My father was asked at the end of the 1950s if he would accept a post as Magistrate at the local Court. He thanked for the honour but refused. He said 'I cannot remain peacefully in judgement of others before me, full knowing on which side of the bench I rightfully belong.'
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 05:46 am | | Hi all,
Sorry about the double message, I wasn't shouting at you.
Hi Karoline,
I'm just going for lunch and your mail beat mine to it. Good points, though. I'll come back after midday and try to answer with what I think.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 10:07 am | | Hi Karoline,
I don't think that Florie's sentence was commuted on account of her not poisoning James within three or four days. If that had been the case she would never have been brought to trial in the first place. And the law relating to murder has never placed such restrictions as this (although time may be a relevant consideration to causation it definitely isn't when arguing between 3 days and 12 days).
In any event Florie most certainly wasn't under house arrest three or four days before James died. Florie was not arrested for the murder of James until 14 May, three days after his death. And even though she may have been suspected of causing his illness before he died she certainly couldn't be suspected of murder while he was still alive. There is evidence that she was stripped of all her duties in caring for James in his last days but she was only absent from his bedside due to her illness on 11 May.
Florie did not prepare any of James Maybrick's food. The Maybricks employed a cook, Elizabeth Humphreys and she gave evidence at trial that she prepared James' food. It may have been the case that Florie had handed the food to James (as equally the other servant or Maybrick's brothers) but there was no evidence is this respect at the trial and it is mere speculation rather than hard evidence to suggest that she poisoned his food.
Dela |
Author: Matthew Delahunty
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 10:09 am | | | It surprises me that nobody has mentioned the possibility that Florie may have been pregnant as being the reason for her reprieve. |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 10:13 am | | Hi Karoline,
Now that I have had time to read your post properly, I see that I have already answered many of your points in my crossed post to Bob Hinton. The crux of the matter is why she was reprieved, not if. I do not claim that Levy was not paraphrasing Matthews, but from the legal view, a conviction known to be based on unsound evidence is different to a reprieve because of extenuating circumstances, or other matters.
As you say, Florence's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Exactly that is what I say was wrong, and the reasons for saying that are mainly the same as intimated by Levy. I claim, as does Levy, that Matthews was not entitled to do what he did, and that was this life sentence, paraphrased or not. I do not claim that Florence can only have been innocent, but the doubts on the evidence that convicted her were so great, it set a legal reaction that is pertinent in British Law until today.
It is funny, but I have continually written that I do not claim that Flo was innocent, nor do I, and had I done so I could not prove it. I claim, however, and that all along, that Flo was evidently not treated according to the letter of the law, but to unsafe evidence in which case the conviction should have had no stand.
Your statement about Flo having 'House arrest' is more or less accurate, but with what legal right? With what was she charged, and by whom? The simple suspicion of someone, even then, was no legal basis, although it was sometimes practised. (Incidentally, illegally. Even in 1888) Was Flo a person of second class rights? Was she inferior to others in the eyes of the law?
The points about arsenic and if Flo had a hand in the game is a completely different kettle of fish. I see all possible mixtures from her really trying to help him by following his instructions to give him arsenic, which he evidently used, to trying to bump the bastard off with flypaper extract to make way for Brierly. We remember that arsenic was freely available then and was used for 'medical' purposes. It was known that you could poison someone with it, but there are weed-killers available today that are a multiple more deadly than arsenic. Packets of this stuff stay around in myriad garden sheds all over the world. Maybrick was dying, evidently as the result of long-term poisoning, and it was not known who, himself or others, were responsible.
I suspect, with hardly any evidence at all, that Flo was a scapegoat and the rest of the Maybrick relations cashed in on his death at the expense of this foreigner using the hypocritical morals of the times. Maybe the bit I learned in the mob about the law is really true:
You are not punished for committing a crime. You are punished for being stupid enough to allow yourself to be found guilty of it.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 10:21 am | | I tend to think that Scotland does it better with its 'not proven', rather than supposed 'innocent' verdict.
But 'beyond reasonable doubt' is my favourite phrase. It means, to my mind, that the onus is fairly and squarely on the prosecution to come up with the goods, without corruption, coercion, beatings, perjury, invention or God knows what else in the attempts to make a charge stick. There must have been numerous occasions where the guilty have had to be acquitted because the powers-that-be were over-zealous and improperly gilded the pill. Others where the innocent had a whole case trumped up against them to 'appease the baying masses' (or more likely the rabid end of the media), in the quest for a conviction, any conviction.
It makes one wonder how many times they actually score a bulls-eye and get it spot-on. It also must make some jury members with a conscience loath to convict anyone at all these days, even though we no longer string 'em up.
Wonder how many child-abusing Victorian parents got their just deserts (spotted dick springs to mind here, grin). Stringing the likes of them up would have been more understandable (though thoroughly reprehensible of me to suggest such a thing, ahem!)
Back to Florie, and I still can't help wondering if she would have come to such a sticky end if there had been no evidence of her adultery, to cause motive to be discussed. Today, a spouse can leave a fornicating, drug-abusing git (or other undesirables of any gender) and get a life. Not so easy in Victorian times, eh Peter et al? Or don't you agree?
Jim and Jules,
My suspect was not averse to copious amounts of beer, wine or spirits, he just couldn't abide sticking his share in the whip, mercenary swine that he was all his life.
Love to all,
Caz |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 10:22 am | | Hi Dela,
Post crossed again. I must take another look at the Maybrick story. The 'house arrest' that Karoline refers to, or at least so I believe, was indeed the 'stripping of duties' you refer to. If my memory serves me correctly, the story of the meat extract may have played the great part.
As Mistress of the house, Florrie was indeed to unright so treated. Didn't she complain about being a prisoner in her own house, or have I dreamed it?
Good points from you,
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 10:38 am | | Hi Bob,
Seems Florie lost most of any 'rights' she thought she had as soon as she foolishly entered the Maybrick menagerie, animals the lot of them. Cautionary 'tail' or what?
Love,
Caz (getting on my high horse again? Neigh laddie). |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 10:52 am | | Hi Caz,
She was young as they met on the boat, and I suppose it turned her head a bit. James was already a rich and influential man. I wonder what I would do if some mink-draped, diamond dripping, gold covered mature woman with the unmistakable aurora of loads of dough started making amorous advances to me.
I don't really wonder what I'd do, only how quickly I'd do it.
Love
Bob |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 12:32 pm | | Oh dear, Bob, money does indeed seem to be the root of all evil, doesn't it? It was a youth thing with Florie then? With hindsight, in middle years, people sometimes start to realise that wealth ain't all it's cracked up to be. Enough is as good as a feast and all that. I bet Florie would have given up any desire for fur, jewels or gold in exchange for the love of a decent human being of either sex, as lover or friend.
Don't fall for Barbara Cartland or the Queen Mum, Bob, no-one will believe your motives (giggle).
love,
Caz |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 12:48 pm | | Bob:
"she was found guilty of murder but was reprieved because of GRAVE doubts (that means she was no longer a convicted murderer because if she was, she would have HUNG). "
I think I now know where your problem lies. Florrie was reprieved FROM THE DEATH PENALTY. she was NOT reprieved from being a murderess. In short, her crime stood but her sentence was changed. There have been a number of cases in the UK where a convicted murderer has been reprieved from being hanged. James Kelly was one of them: reprieved because of being one shrimp short of a barbie. It didn't mean that he was found guilty of a lesser crime; in Broadmoor he was a murderer
As to the quote in your original post, which I assume to be from Levy:"I submit that the Home Secretary was not entitled to say '....you may not be guilty of murder, perhaps you are not. But you are, in my opinion guilty of another crime for which you have not been tried; therefore I shall make use of the warrant of conviction and sentence of murder to punish you for the other crime of which I have found you guilty'
unless you can come up with a ststement from Matthews himself saying this or anything similar, then I maintain that it was made up by Levy (or whoever you're quoting from) to make a point.
Please don't think that I dislike you, Bob. I don't even know you. If however you start one of your posts by crowing:
Oh Peter! Oh Karoline!
I have been licking my fat lips for hours and sharpening my mental claws, just waiting for the time to come to pounce. Oh doubters of the scripts! Hear ye, and be stilled.
then you have to expect a bit of a reaction!
Peter "Best friend to the World" Birchwood. |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 02:02 pm | | I can't really offer an opinion on the 'house arrest' etc. because I haven't seen any primary sources, and I hate relying too much on anything else.
I just don't know enough about the details of the Maybrick case.
But does anyone know why Florie's sentence was commuted?
With regard to the 'Maybrick was a worthless creep' thing. I just think we should all reserve judgement on that. I certainly don't have enough information to decide that question either way, and I kind of suspect that the bogus diary is responsible for a great deal of what people currently think they 'know' about the unfortunate man. But where will we end up if we start taking out 'facts' from sources like that.
I think we should at least try to separate objective fact from subjective fancy.
He wasn't a 'junkie' was he? Even if he did take arsenic 'medicinally' - and no one has produced any fresh evidence here yet that he did - this isn't an addictive substance.
How much evidence for persistant violence do we have?
And, monster or not, he did die an awful death, didn't he? presumably poisoned by someone.
And I guess of all those around, Florie had the best motive, didn't she?
According to the letter quoted above, even her own counsel believed she had tried to poison him. So it must be at least a live possibility that she did.
But only think of what that means. Poison is a cruel cold way to kill. It takes nerve, and a real will to destroy another human being.
Think of a person who could watch anyone, however much reason they had to hate them, die slowly in the awful way that arsenic kills.
Think of our Flo, watching the father of her children retching and writhing in agony. Think of her offering all that false sympathy, bringing him comforting little drinks that were designed to kill him, banking on the fact that he trusted her too much to ever think she might be harming him
It isn't much like my idea of a helpless victim. I tend to think someone who could do that could well take care of themselves in any situation.
But that isn't to say I believe she did it. I don't know either way. I'm just trying to remind the discussion of what this particular murder would have required of her. I'm suggesting we should be open-minded to all possibilities and not quite so ready with the crown of martyrdom.
On a slightly different topic, Bob C. - I don't think the law does regard attempted murder as a lesser offence. I think it actually carries the same mandatory sentence as murder itself.
take care
Karoline |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 13 April 1999 - 07:26 pm | | G'day everyone,
Yeah it's me again, chucking in another one from the left field. This hasn't got anything to do with Florrie but is an interesting bit of legal trivia from Victorian times. So if you don't want to see the score turn away now.
In the cases of murder and the like, if the suspect was found not guilty by reason of lack of evidence or something (even though it was bloody obvious he did it) then a relative of the victim could appeal to the Kings Bench and ask for a retrial. I can't remember the name of the case but it happened to one bloke who was charged with raping and murdering a young woman in the 1820s (I think). His defence against the retrial was to invoke a medieval law which entitled him to a trial by combat. No points for guessing that this involves both parties trying to bash the crap out of each other until one or the other gives up.
I'm pretty sure that both the appealing process and the trial by combat process were discontinued after this case.
If you want to read more, there's a book called 'Murder in the Midlands' which covers a few cases from Victorian England.
Hope you found that interesting. I did. Oh, by the way, the bloke who invoked the trial by combat law won his freedom. The retrial was brought about by the victim's scrawny 17yr old brother who thought that Trial by Combat was a futuristic video game until the Judge pointed him in the direction of a vacant field. He withdrew the appeal.
Jules |
|
|
|
|
