Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Point To Ponder : Seaman Sadler- Guilty Or Not Guilty ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Point To Ponder : Seaman Sadler- Guilty Or Not Guilty ?

    A couple of days ago, Stephen Thomas mentioned that discussion about James Sadler's possible guilt in the Coles Murder doesn't get, well, discussed much.

    This is the place for that.

    I think he was innocent.

    More importantly, what do you think ?
    16
    No
    50.00%
    8
    Yes
    37.50%
    6
    Undecided
    12.50%
    2
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

  • #2
    No, Sadler was so drunk he could barely stand up, and Coles was seen 15 mins or so before she is killed walking off with a man in a cheese cutter hat, dressed like a sailor. The most likely suspect, in my view.

    Comment


    • #3
      Mac

      Hello Howard. Good question.

      This may be one time when Mac made good sense.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #4
        I do think the police were right to detain Sadlier. He had been with Frances and had quarrelled with her. He was bloodied and was certainly rather a volatile character, swore like a trooper, and mistreated his wife.

        Nevertheless, I don't believe that a person as paralyticaly drunk as Sadlier was that evening would have been physically capable of the assault, murder and then
        successfully escaping afterwards. I think Frances probably died as a result of an argument over the price for her services with an unknown client.

        Comment


        • #5
          Lynn:

          I think the natural inclination of police personnel would be to give Sadler serious consideration...he's the only fellow the police had to consider...ever.

          Yet, the one stand out piece of defense testimony was Ellen Calloran ( since her name, like Bachert and Tumblety's is spelled umpteen different ways, lets go with that).....to me that is.
          To Join JTR Forums :
          Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
            Lynn:

            I think the natural inclination of police personnel would be to give Sadler serious consideration...he's the only fellow the police had to consider...ever.

            Yet, the one stand out piece of defense testimony was Ellen Calloran ( since her name, like Bachert and Tumblety's is spelled umpteen different ways, lets go with that).....to me that is.
            Entirely agree, not guilty.
            Regards, Jon S.
            "
            The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
            " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
            Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm going to agree with the above - entirely understandable as to why Sadler was suspect number one, but he wasn't guilty and nor was JTR. Frances Coles seems to have been the unfortunate victim of a one-off killer.

              Cheers,
              Adam.

              Comment


              • #8
                I voted no based on the following story I will link below. The link is transcribed at casebook.org and is from the East London Observer
                Saturday, 28 March 1891.

                Sadler seems to offer his answers quickly, considering he wasn't expecting this reporter to show up at his doorstep. He claims Duncan Campbell lied and was in police pay. This is a very detailed account of him telling his side of the story.


                http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true

                Comment


                • #9
                  zwei

                  Hello Adam. What are the probabilities of two such killers in London? (heh-heh)

                  Cheers.
                  LC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi Lynn,

                    Nice one. By 1891, probably nil, as JTR was elsewhere or had fallen off the mortal coil.

                    Cheers,
                    Adam.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      schedule

                      Hello Adam. Thanks.

                      Why? Surely a couple years is not so great a time? I mean "JTR" was not on a schedule, was he? (heh-heh)

                      Cheers.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        John Bennett is quoted here during an interview about his ( and Paul Begg's ) book, Beyond Jack The Ripper :

                        The other major feature is an examination of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of James Sadler for the murder of Frances Coles in 1891. It's a lengthy chapter which reveals the little mentioned fact that it was, to all intents and purposes, a police set-up with Sadler as a scapegoat. It suggests that the police may not have always been playing by the book and that by fitting Sadler up for the Coles murder, they could tell everybody that the Ripper had been caught. It obviously didn't work.
                        To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Well I believe Wynne Baxter thought Sadler was being fitted up. The inquest jury seemed to think so too. This was a very detailed inquest with at least 55 witnesses testifying, and yet the jury only took a few minutes to deliberate and pretty much exonerate Sadler. Charles Matthews had his coat handed to him by Baxter, not Mr. Lawless.

                          As far as Sadler killing Coles... I don't know; it's possible. His whereabouts during the time of the murder wasn't established, but everywhere before and after was. His story checked out. So if he did it he was one cool customer.
                          Best Wishes,
                          Cris Malone
                          ______________________________________________
                          "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            No.....Everything points to the guy she went off with from Commercial Street

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I'm with you on that idea, Steve.
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X