|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Martha Tabram continued
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Martha Tabram continued
Author: Jill
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 10:29 am |        | Hello All,
Taking Stephens warning into account about adding new messages to the saved boards, I start this new one about Martha.
We've always perceived the bayonet and the pen-knife as the one of the killer (or killers). After rereading some posts, I tried to visualise the killer picking his bayonet-like knife with the left hand. But from where did he pick it, his left side or the right side of the body or the GROUND. The last possibility let me wonder if it even was his. Maybe it was Martha's. Did women, and especially those sleeping and living on the street carry knives with them? Which type would it have been, a pen knife? Or in this case, could it have been a past payment of her customers such as the many soldiers she was with?
I know many women carried knives during the Ripper scare, but Martha's murder is before that time. Actually I can't recall any knives among the posessions of any victim, except for Eddowes (a little house knife). Which seems strange if they were streetbound and had a high risk job. Could knives have been something JtR would have stolen away from his victims, even when he personally had not used them?
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Caz
Monday, 13 December 1999 - 12:12 pm | | Interesting thoughts as usual Jill.
Having lived and worked for several years in London myself, I can understand why these women might have chosen to arm themselves somehow, especially when they heard about other apparently motiveless attacks on women so similar to themselves.
However, I have always been warned that the danger of carrying a weapon for self-defence is that an attacker of superior physical strength could easily disarm you and use the weapon on you (not to mention the risk of being charged with possessing an offensive weapon, not that this would have bothered the 1888 unfortunates).
Mind you, this did not stop me keeping a large pair of sharp scissors handy in my knitting bag which I carried with me on the underground. God knows if I would have had the courage to use them, even if my life was at stake.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 02 July 2000 - 08:01 pm | | Tabram - suicide?.
Ok, I guess you learn something new every day....
I was just watching the North American show '60 minutes' and they were investigating a military death, classed as suicide.
A Captain Hess was found with multiple stab wounds to his neck & upper chest, it was investigated by military pathologists and confirmed as a suicide.
Type of weapon, not specified, (I may have missed that bit).
Apparently Hess is said to have stabbed himself 26 times, 6 of which were determined by outside Pathologists to have been fatal. Two of those wounds severed the left ventricle of the heart.
A diagram showing the location of the wounds was shown, a close cluster of about a dozen wounds around the base of the neck, adam's apple area, and below.
The rest were in a close cluster around the heart, covering an approximate area of 1 foot diameter.
Pathologists maintained that death by self inflicted multiple stab wounds is common enough not to be regarded as 'strange'.
Its not the controvertial findings of this case that surprised me (military cover-up?) but its the apparent fact that death by self inflicted multiple stab wounds is considered 'sound'.
Even if a knife had been found beside Tabram's body, I would never have considered it a case of suicide.
"Strange days indeed"
Jon |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 02 July 2000 - 08:21 pm | | | How about the Japanese practice of Hara-Kiri? |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 02 July 2000 - 08:34 pm | | Thats once, Diana.
The ritual calls for once with a ritual sword, through the abdomen, not multiple stab wounds. |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:44 pm | | The suicide theory is an interesting one .
As I recollect the bayonet wasn't used. I believe the coroner's inquest stated a dagger was likely the weapon. But concerning the use of the left hand to utilze the bayonet. Although if you are right handed it will seem awkward. I teach people useage of the bayonet particularly McClellan's school of the bayonet is use during the American Civil War. Fixing and unfixing is one of the very few things done with the left hand. Now of course methods differ slightly even among different teachers but not by that much so the left hand doesn't become a stretch even if the user is right handed. If a Sabre bayonet such as was used on several variants of the Enfield and Martini military rifles used by British forces up to that time was used on Tabram it could have been wielded by a right-hander in the left hand Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 11:38 pm | | Hello all,
Did somebody suggest that Tabram committed suicide? If so, that's some pretty potent crack you're smoking. I won't comment on that any further, but I would like to toss in my two cents and say that I am of the opinion that Tabram was indeed strangled prior to her mutilation and that she was quite likely only murdered with one knife. Scott Medine made the very eye-opening comparison between the hard breast-plate (where Tabram supposedly received the single dagger/bayonet wound) and a block of wood. If you thrust a knife hard into a block of wood it is difficult to pull out straight, therefore you would jiggle it side to side until it is worked free. Then if you take the same knife and thrust it into a watermelon, pull it out, and compare it to the hole in the wood, it would appear as if the hole in the wood were made by a larger weapon due to the additional damage you made while working it free. This very well could have been the case with Tabram. It is also the possibility that the killer broke a knife at some point during the attack and was forced to rely on a different one. Other serial killers have reported this occuring during their murders. I am also of the opinion, based on the evidence and testimony, that a bayonet was at no time used.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 03:30 am | | Hi Neil, Tom,
Of course, the reason why a bayonet as the second weapon has come forward is because, initially, a soldier was suspected of being Tabram's killer.
At the inquest, Dr Killeen states some kind of dagger was used. It's easy to understand why he thought this. As you pointed out Tom, Scott Medine compared the hard breast plate with a block of wood, which is indeed a fair comparison. The wound inflicted by the "dagger" went through the chest-bone. This is significant because a knife, like the one used to inflict the other 38 wounds, none of which were deep, simply wouldn't be strong enough to do this. It isn't a question of stabbing into the chest-bone and wiggling it to get it back out. A large, strong knife, or a dagger is required. Thus, i believe two weapons were used. And I agree, Tom, that it is definitely possible the knife/dagger broke during the attack. It also fits with my notion that the other 38 wounds were overkill. Perhaps her killer was enraged with his knife breaking?
I also believe it would have been easy, and simpler, to inflict all the wounds with the same hand. It just doesn't seem likely that he was wielding a weapon in each hand like some action movie star, or matial arts practitioner. The angles may have been different because he held the large weapon differently than the smaller one.
Tom, I am interested in your idea that Tabram was strangled. Could you please explain your theory about this point.
Cheers,
John |
Author: graziano
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 05:34 am | | We know from the reports of Inspector Reid that the 13th of August 1888 a parade was organized at Wellington Barracks to allow Mary Ann Connelly to identify the soldiers who were with her and Tabram on the night of the 6th ultimo.
For the parade were called only the soldiers who that night were on the leave.
That sounds logical.
She picked up two men.
One said he had been with his wife. The police checked it and found corroboration of that.
The other, "Skipper", said he had been on the barracks from 10.00 p.m. the 6th till 6.00 a.m. the 7th.
The books in the Barracks gave him credit.
But the parade was supposed to call only the soldiers who had been on the leave the night of 6/7th.
And he had not been (on the leave). But he was nevertheless called.
And then, when identified he said he had been in the Barracks.
But he didn't say that before. Had he done that he could have avoided the parade.
But he went to the parade.
What am I missing here ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 08:28 pm | | John,
Here's the hub of why I think Tabram was strangled:
1. She was stabbed 39 times in a crowded dwelling. Dr. Killeen testified that she survived all the wounds, eventually dying of hemorrage. This being the case it does not seem illogical that she was rendered unconscious prior to her mutilations. In fact, it seems likely.
2. PC Barrett, the first officer to view the body, noted that her hands were 'tightly clenched', a sign of strangulation.
3. The Illustrated Police News (not a dependable source, I realize) reported that 'the difficulty of identification arose out of the brutal treatment to which the deceased was manifestly subjected, she being throttled while held down and the face and head so swollen and distorted in consequence that her real features are not discernible.' Obviously, the reporter exaggerated a bit, but there were indeed problems with identification, and the possibility of strangulation is brought to the front.
4. In 1906 ex-Detective Inspector Harry Cox wrote his memoirs for Thomson's Weekly News. Cox had been a beat constable at the time of Tabrams murder and was present at the crime scene, also working on the investigation into her murder. He had this to say regarding Tabram's condition - 'Most of the bodies which are found at the riverside or in the dark squalid streets bear the marks of struggles or of blows given in anger. But this one bore neither. It appeared rather that the woman had been quietly throttled to death...'
Here we have the first police officer on the scene describing signs of strangulation, a contemporary paper reporting strangulation, and an actual investigating policeman detailing that not only did her corpse have the appearance of strangulation, but he also brings up the point that her head revealed no blow-wounds. If Tabram had not received a blow to the head, which Dr. Killeen revealed was the case, then how else do you suggest she was silenced prior to mutilation if not by strangulation? There was no noise and no sign of a struggle, so she could not have been conscious during the attack.
It may also be worth noting that at the Zodiac killer's Lake Berryesa attack, he stabbed a young couple numerous times, and deeply. The girl received 24 stab wounds and remained conscious for hours, even though her heart had been pierced. She died the next day. She was screaming in immense pain. Tabram would have been also had she been conscious. Zodiac's weapon had been a bayonet blade attached to a wooden handle that he apparently made himself.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 08:55 pm | | Why doesn't someone through the century time-space warp for the first time suggest that JtR dressed up like a soldier the night he killed Tabram? After all, he dressed up in various ways, including a sailor, for his other gigs. Why do I always have to be the one on the cutting edge? It becomes boring.
Now, why would he want to look like a soldier that night? Hmmmmmmm? A soldier would be entitled to carry a bayonet. Perhaps the murderer wanted to stab someone with a big blast, so he chose a bayonet, and so he needed to look like someone entitled to carry a bayonet. For Gosh sakes, folks, this is so easy! Now, go ahead and solve the case.
David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 09:16 pm | | Dear David,
Cos it takes someone like YOU to TELL US! Cut us a caper, use your bladder...PLAY THE FOOL. We are waiting. My time is nearly up!
Rosey :-)) |
Author: Jack Traisson
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 10:39 pm | | Hi Tom,
Thanks for the well-reasoned answer to my question. I wasn't aware of the Harry Cox memoirs in Thompson's Weekly News. I'll have to give it a read.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 18 January 2002 - 11:04 pm | | | To my knowledge, Henry Cox never personally investigated the Tabram murder, but was merely recalling the events as he heard them, surrounding the discovery of her body. I could be wrong. Tabram's murder occurred within the MET police jurisdiction. |
Author: Jack Traisson
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 01:24 am | | I just read Cox's story from Thompson's Weekly News (reprinted in full) in The Man Who Hunted Jack The Ripper by Connell and Evans. It's quite fascinating to hear a new (for me anyway) point of view.
You are correct, Scott, Cox was a City of London detective. Evans and Connell make the point that McWilliam (City Police) and Swanson liased well.
Cox does give the impression that he viewed Tabram's body personally -- perhaps at the mortuary. Interestingly, he doesn't give the same impression with any of the other killings, including Eddowes. It seems very clear that he was involved in the hunt for JTR through surveillance; specifically, of a shopkeeper, 5 feet 6 inches in height, with dark curly hair, who spent some time in a Surrey lunatic asylum. The man is not named by Cox, nor is he reputed to have been Jack. In fact, Cox thought it possible, given the murder dates, that he may have even been a sailor.
One point that Cox makes, which shows foresight and a knowledge of serial killers, is that he states that the Ripper was to be found amongst the class he preyed upon, and that if the killings had occured in the West end, they would have looked for an educated man instead. Absolutely textbook reasoning by today's standards. I think this illustrates that the police of 1888 were not as in the dark on how to go about profiling Jack as many writers would have us believe.
Cheers,
John |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 08:59 am | | ---- 1. She was stabbed 39 times in a crowded dwelling. Dr. Killeen testified that she survived all the wounds, eventually dying of hemorrage. This being the case it does not seem illogical that she was rendered unconscious prior to her mutilations. In fact, it seems likely. ----
Killeen did not say she survived all the wounds... She died because of the heart stab...
---- 2. PC Barrett, the first officer to view the body, noted that her hands were 'tightly clenched', a sign of strangulation. ----
Also a sign of immediate death spams ... something akin to rigor mortis... Actually that would indicate a much later time of death than originally, and generally accepted. Around the time when - I suppose that must be Crow - notices her lying in the corner as he goes up the stairs.
Cox doesn't appear on the records and inquest about Tabram's investigation. If he had been on the premises he would have been a witness. I would treat his testimony with great waryness and care, if I were you.
---- Here we have the first police officer on the scene describing signs of strangulation, a contemporary paper reporting strangulation, and an actual investigating policeman detailing that not only did her corpse have the appearance of strangulation, but he also brings up the point that her head revealed no blow-wounds. If Tabram had not received a blow to the head, which Dr. Killeen revealed was the case, then how else do you suggest she was silenced prior to mutilation if not by strangulation ----
Cox isn't the first police officer on the scene. I'm not sure whether to believe he was there at all. But you take his at-first-glance opinion over the documented testimony of Killeen's investigation where he mentions an effusion at the back of the head. What else is that as screaming 'blow on the head'?
--- There was no noise and no sign of a struggle, so she could not have been conscious during the attack. ----
Tabram was also stabbed 9 times in the throat (those are 9 out of the 39 stabs, mostly covering her torso). It's rather difficult to make noise appart from some gagging sounds, when you're throat has been stabbed 9 times in a row, after getting a blow on the head before that.
As for the bayonet... Scott Medine's explanation on that seems a very logical explanation of how such a wound can be created like that. And as for the other wounds being less deep, against the sternum-heart wound, which has been alluded to as well. The majority (nearly all of them, except 9 throat stabs, and 1 stomach stab) of the wounds
were inflicted upon a body part protected by the skeleton. It's not because Killeen only refers to organs, that the killer did not nick other ribs, besides going through the sternum. The whole area is tough there. Yep, there's good reason to accept it was the same knife all the time.
Greets,
Jill |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 12:30 pm | | Jill,
I think Dr Killeen's deduction of lack of struggle comes also from the fact that the body was lying in a pool of blood and there weren't any blood spurts or splashes around the body and on the landing.
If the victim was still alive when she got the stabs in the throat, the heart still beating and thus the blood still pressurized, we would not have had only the suggested quiet licking out of the blood from the body but some mess all around.
So, I think that to suggest she was unconscious before being murdered is quite safe.
This would be also corroborated by the absence of any noise from the murder site (unusual or not).
For the rest I completely agree with you.
One need a lot of imagination to see any kind of strangulation in this case.
Now, another point.
In my message above (18.01 5.34 a.m.) I state a point that was already been brought up by yourself quite some time ago :
how "Skipper" could have been paraded among soldiers who were on the leave the night of the murder if the books of the Barracks gave evidence of the contrary ?
As when you brought it up, this point does not seem to bring along much consideration but I may have an explanation for it.
(Be lenient because here I rely on memory)
During the second world war there was some kind of a Ripper in England (not sure it was in London but I think so).
The guy's name was something like Tom Cummins.
He was a military.
He killed three or four prostitutes.
He was not very careful and he left on the murder sites quite a lot of clues.
He was quite immediately suspected but at the beginning he was immediately discharged from police inquest because on the night of one of the murders the register of the barracks where he was stationed showed that that same night he was not on the leave (exactly as "Skipper").
Now, it was only after the third or the fourth slain that one (or more) of his military colleagues came forward saying that they signed for him on the books believing just to help an unlucky mate who could have been suspected only because it fortuitously happened that he was out the night of the killing.
When they began suspecting him, they went to the police and aknowledged he was not in the barracks the night of the crime.
So, I think that this could have happened for "Skipper", after all the solidarity of soldiers belonging to the same unity is well known all over the world, not only in England.
Mary Ann Connelly was quite positive in her identification and I think she was right.
"Skipper", after been identified could have just asked his companions to sign for him, proving he could not have been with Tabram the night of the 6/7th of August, swearing to them that yes, he went with the woman but being able to prove them he could not have killed her.
The estimated time of death would make him in any case a very unlikely murderer.
They could have signed his name to avoid him useless problems.
Showing that the Guards were not so cooperative with the police after all.
Of course, I assume that it is quite safe also to presume that he did not kill her and was able to give a satisfactory explanation to his comrades since they would not have defended a murderer.
Well, I just assume.
What do you think about it ?
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 01:07 pm | | ---- Also a sign of immediate death spams ... something akin to rigor mortis... Actually that would indicate a much later time of death than originally, and generally accepted. ----
Just extra specification on this... It would mean that she had an instant death-freeze-spasm reaction at the point of death, during the attack.
So when Killeen decided on the rigor mortis how long Tabram had been dead, he judged by the time it would take for a normal rigor mortis to set in... therefore timing the attack several hours earlier than it actually was. As Scott Medine has explained to me, it would place the attack near the time when Crow had noticed her as he went up the stairs.
And yes I would agree she was unconscious. For a long while I considered strangulation, but the only clue to it were the clenched hands. Killeen's original timing put us up for a lot of inconsistencies with the PC walkign around, maybe even two prostitutes sharing the same spot at the same time, and the couple going to bed. Since the clenched hands-clue is more indicative of a spasm-death reaction to the violence inflicted upon her, and moves the timing of the act and the death at less inconsistent period of the night, I have chosen to go along with the spasm-death theory instead of suffocuting.
Your theory of the soldiers sticking up for their colleague seems a very acceptable one.
Greets,
Jill |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 05:05 pm | | After research, the exact name of the guy I cited above was not Tom but Frederick Gordon Cummins and he was a pilot in the RAF.
The murders happened in 1942.
He killed four women in 6 days and was hanged the 25th of June 1942.
As I said each time he had a perfect alibi because he apparently signed the books all nights of the murders at a time before the murders were committed (you sign the books as soon as you come back in the barracks).
But it was then found by the police that it was common and standard practice for the pilots to sign for each other as exchange of favours.
Let us not forget that Skipper's companion ( I do not now remember his name - George ?) had his alibi corroborated only by his wife.
So, once again, I think that the case is quite strong for believing Mary Ann Connelly picked out the right men.
Still, I doubt they were the killers, and the idea of David Radka, that "Jack" dressed up like a soldier, is very rich indeed.
Overall when we think that PC Barrett was much less positive in his identification than Connelly was.
And this idea could, if we follow the testimony of PC Barrett (the soldier he meets telling him he is waiting for his chum), also reinforce the theory that Jack was more than one.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 19 January 2002 - 07:22 pm | | As Abberline puts it in the graphic novel of ' From Hell , speaking about Polly Nichols :
' Smith was raped and tortured. Thats cruelty. I can understand cruelty. Tabram was killed by frenzied and repeated stabbing. Thats rage. I understand that too...This case though...its different somehow. ' ( ' From Hell ' 6/12)
To which Godley replies :
' So , you're saying its a different perpetrator ? '
Simon |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 11:06 am | | And what is the answer given ?
From the way they were cut and the doctors comments it seems to me quite clear that Chapman and Eddowes where not the action of the same perpetrator neither.
Should we think that one of them was not Jack's work ?
Or that Jack was more than two hands ?
And more than two souls ?
All rough but one more sadic ?
But the graphic novel has a lot of beautiful citations, that's for sure.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 12:45 pm | | ' From Hell ' continued ( see my last post ).
In the next panel , Godley adds :
'But if thats the case ; if its not the protection gangs then wheres the motive ?'
To which Abberline replies :
' Ah well , Godley , thats the thing isn't it ? The motive. '
' Thats the thing. '
Simon |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 03:16 pm | | Beautiful.
I have always been convinced that Poets will solve the case, not "experts". |
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 20 January 2002 - 11:23 pm | | | Why doesn't the policeman get the name of the soldier standing there.He entered into enough of a conversation.Was this normal practice.He could not identify him again. Perhaps the incident never happened and the policeman was trying to make it appear he was on his rounds.If one stops you today you will be asked for some identification.That whole incident seems suspect. |
Author: graziano
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 05:39 am | | I am not sure of the legal aspect of the question at the time, but as far as I know in Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany, The Netherlands and even in the Czech Republic, it is not possible (law forbidding) for a policeman to control your identity in the street aside in very peculiar cases depending on your behaviour or on circumstancial extraordinary situations.
Defense of your privacy.
What I said should however be checked.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 08:47 am | | | Graziano; He asked his business there, loitering at a late hour. The soldier had no problem telling him,( so he said),what he had been and what he was doing.If you can get this far why not a name? |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 08:57 am | | A policeman asking someone about his business at a late hour in a backstreet, is in this case legal. But since the man can give a satisfactory answer, and there has been no problem reported at the time PC Barret would have no call to ask for the man's identity, as such is private information.
It is true, in Belgium they can not ask for your identity out of the blue, certainly not after you could give a satisfactory reason for being at that place. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 09:39 am | | | Today,if you get stopped by highway patrollmen, even on routine checks, you're going to have to give your name ,(and that in these politically correct times).Loitering an any time ,with two prior murders in an area where murder had been a rarity would raise some kind of flag.Don't you think a little later he felt rather stupid. In the barracks review he looked stupid. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:04 am | | I do not know which country yuo are from... so I don't know about your 'highway patrollmen' referenced against London PC's.
--- Loitering an any time ,with two prior murders in an area where murder had been a rarity would raise some kind of flag. ---
Only one prior murder, david... in April. We're the beginning of August. So no PC Barrett was not looking for a killer. He patrolled the area to hurry prostitutes away, make sure there were no brawls, and keeping people on the move on the street, instead of meeting up for illegal interaction (=intercourse)
It's a bank holiday, about 2 o'clock, and PC Barret, who is not thinking of murder at all, notices a soldier, who are known to brawl at times, hanging around. He'll suspect the guy is gonna meet up with a lady, probably, so he goes up to him and asks first what the guy's doing there. Soldier does not act as if he's doing something wrong, and gives a reasonable explanation, in a reasonable insuspicious tone of voice. PC Barret is satsified, and can accomplish his main focus, sending the guy on his way again.
Of course he would have felt stupid afterwards, but that's always the case when you find out about circumstances you were not aware of at the time.
Anyhow, the soldier could not have been related to the murder at the time, since Tabram was murdered two hours later from the soldier's sighting. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:27 am | | | USA. Sorry about the mistake about the number of prior murders. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 11:25 am | | --- USA. ---
David, there is a big difference between European privacy law and what cops can ask, against the American.
Although the USA tends to wave often with their individual rights and so on, privacy protection law is more severe in Europe than the USA. For example... taps. It is only since the last ten years that police eavesdropping has been limitedly allowed. Entrapment is totally illegal here. So a copper can not arrest a hooker for saying yes to his advances, no using drugs to set up a dealer, and all of that procedures. It's illegal here, and from what I have gathered in Great Britain, it's similar there as with us.
I know that an employer can ask about your driving history with your insurance company in the USA. Here it is illegal. Insurance may not even volunteer your accident record to the police, unless they ask for it, which they can't or they should have a reasonable suspicion or even proof to ask the insurance company.
All an employer can ask for here, is a paper of 'good conduct'. And only the person him- or herself can ask about it at the police office, and then lay it in front of the employer.
Nobody, outside police, can ask for your wrap sheet, but yourself.
Nobody can ask about your bank account, unless the police can get a warrant for it, which can only be obtained under certain circumstances that have already been played out etc...
So you see, privacy law is a very heavy subject here, in Belgium, but also in the other industrial countries of Europe, such as France, Great Britain, The Netherlands etc.. And incomparable with that of the USA
Greets,
Jill |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 11:35 am | | | Jill; Thanks-And that went back to 1888?Interesting. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 12:24 pm | | In the U.S. it has always been a part of law enforcement to inquire as to a person's reasons for frequenting a back alley in a high crime area, even in 19th century America. A frisk would usually result and still does today. That policy was not constitutionally tested until the late 1960's early 1970's ( if I am remembering correctly from my days at the police academy). In what became a landmark Supreme Court decision, called the Terry stop, giving the police the right to pat down questionable persons in rather questionable circumstances.
The High Court said the police can conduct a pat down for weapons to insure officer and public safety at any time the officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be taking place. The court went on to say that the police can inquire a person's name and reasons for being in a particular area if the police once again have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is, has or is about to take place.
This is the law that gang units and narcotics units work under when conducting sweeps of gang infested and high drug traffic neighborhoods. If you have seen the movie "Colors" then you have seen this tactic in use.
Another law similar to the Terry Stop is the Carroll Stop. Another Supreme Court decision at the same time period of the Terry decision and the famous Miranda v. Arizona decision, gave police the authority to stop vehicles that were under reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Reasonable suspicion is not to be confused with probable cause. Reasonable suspicion often leads to probable cause. Probable cause is what is required for an arrest to be made. Reasonable suspicion must be documented. The knowledge the police officer has of the criminal activity in the area, the knowledge the officer has of the criminal background of the person being stopped and the officer's training all goes into determining reasonable suspicion. The Terry and Carroll decisions have been coming under fire in the recent years due to racial profiling.
The problem facing 19th century countries is that no real system was in place for establishing a person's identity. Law enforcement officials were basically having to go on a person's word that they were who they said they were. So even if the officer had questioned the soldier and gotten his name he would have been at the soldier's mercy. I am sure the Armed Forces of Victorian England issued some sort of identity card to its members but with photography still being in its infantcy photographic evidence of the person's identity being questioned would have been very slim.
Today in the US everyone needs a Social Security Number and pretty much a driver's license. The Supreme Court has upheld the states asking for driver's licenses for ID as it is not a constitutional right for an American to drive but rather a privledge granted by the individual states.
Hope this helps.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 12:29 pm | | A bit of European history...
The base and general outline of human rights and the individual stem from the French Revolution, 1789, as you know.
Actually it were the French who started the system of registering people and do a population count, and using identity papers. They were like your 'highway patrol'.
Great Britain was an enemy of France during the French Revolution, and therefore was proud of not applying such a thorough system of identity. And any of the countries that had been able to free itself of France afterwards set up a constitutional law that was derived from the French draft, but abhorred the surveillance of that previous terror reign. (around 1830)
Do not forget that the law on privacy is a basic constitutional law, since it is regarded as a human right... and yes goes back even before mid the 19th century. As most of our basic laws here (industrial Europe) do.
Great Britain did not have those gross excesses like in France to have need of a French Revolution. They already partly had a system where people with money-but no title could be politicians. It was of course not a democracy with a monarch as mere representative role, as it is now, but it was not the sort of dictatorial reign as it was in France.
In any regard though by mid 19th century most constitutional laws were similar with that of the freed European countries.
(If you want to read a novel that relates to politics and voting around mid 19th century, I can advice George Elliot's Felix Holt: The Radical.)
Yes, liberal capitalism of course abused people. But that only refers to money having the most power. Money by that time was a total different thing than nobility. And most restrictions on human rights were applied on having the right to vote, for which you had to be owner of land, or soemthing similar worhtwhile, restrictions on voting because of being of the wrong gender. Still by late 19th century, unions appeared to start shout for the rights of the working class.
And none of the restrictions never had anything to do with privacy.
Therefore, yes... basic stern privacy laws stem from even before 1888. Those examples I gave you are indeed the results from a law made between 1830-1840. Only ten years ago, they have been able to get enough percentage to change that constitution so they could slacken it a bit (not harden it as you might have supposed). This took a lot of making deals and a lot of compromising to get a two third majority. They have been able only to give more leeway to investigation versus protection of privacy because otherwise Police was handtied to do something about advanced criminal activities.
Hardly any of the familiar procedures in the States the police can use in the US has ever been legal in Industrial Europe. Not in the 21st century, not in the 20th, nor in the 19th. |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 02:25 pm | | | THEN A PERSON WAS NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO GIVE CORRECT INFORMATION OR INFORMATION AT ALL IN CENSUS TIMES? |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 03:03 pm | | That information is gathered by other state's offices than the police, david. It still is with our population information counts... Yes, you have to be truthful in your answers on such an official query, but it can not be used for any other purposes than that of the census.
There is a big difference with census inquiries and police stopping you on the road and ask for your ID. The last was the habbit of the French revulotionists, and in our modern days reminds us of Big Brother is watching you.
Scott is right when he says that PC Barret would have been at the Soldier's mercy as to have his truthful name. Do not forget that even Catherine lied about her name when she was taken to a cell at the police office, the night she was murdered.
Greets,
Jill |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 06:11 pm | | | You win. |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 06:57 pm | | ... It's not about winning, David... but exchanging information... you asked and you have acquired a deeper perception, while I and others have been able to learn an answer to a question they did not ask themselves so cearly
I guess we both win ;-)
Greets,
Jill |
Author: david rhea
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 07:04 pm | | | I understand that, and I thank you for our conversation.I have learned much here and have many more questions.Hope to cross your path again. David |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 21 January 2002 - 10:21 pm | | Dear Jill,
The laws of Henry Eighth show that the population movement was strictly controlled...and suspects were marked by the brand...long before the French Revolution had even dreamt of these ideas.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 04:01 am | | David,
The police can ask pretty well anything of anyone.What they cannot do in certain circumstances is demand an answer.Their powers do not extend that far.I think this would apply in most countries.
Regards,H.Mann. |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 10:07 am | | Dear Rosey,
suspects under Henry Eight were people who could have put in jeopardy his priviledges or kicked off his own royal ass.
He did not care a lot about marking in one way or another recidivists common criminals for purposes of identification.
Same thing in France.
But then came the French Revolution.
God Bless ! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 12:39 pm | | As I understand it, the original objectives of the police force in the UK were to protect its people and property and make it as difficult as possible for crime to be committed. As Jill correctly states, entrapment is illegal in the UK too. We don't appear to go in for making more work for ourselves by tempting people to commit a crime they might otherwise not commit.
It may of course have less to do with human rights and fair play and more to do with the stark reality of far too few cops chasing far too many potential villains. 
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
