Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kebbell's Retort

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

  • Kebbell's Retort

    Ottawa Journal
    April 19, 1910
    **********
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

  • #2
    Perhaps Nemo or Debs can answer this question....
    I've been meaning to ask whether anyone knows why Kebble didn't appear as Grainger's solicitor at the trial....I might have already been told the reason, but just to be sure, I'm asking again as I don't remember.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Howard

      On the face of it it would appear that Kebbell was convinced that Grainger was the Ripper and so refused to represent him

      Grainger said himself that his solicitor informed the police that he was the Ripper and so may have objected to being represented by him - this was untrue though as Kebell says he was called to represent him after the rumours were already abroad about him being the Ripper, caught red-handed

      However, Kebbell states that he approached the family and friends of Grainger in an effort to obtain funds for his defence, but both friends and family didn't want anything to do with him

      The reason for Grainger not being represented may therefore have been due to there being no money available to pay for it

      I'm unsure at the moment whether facilities such as the modern legal aid existed in 1895 where you must be offered representation whether you have money or not

      Comment


      • #4
        Grainger said himself that his solicitor informed the police that he was the Ripper and so may have objected to being represented by him - this was untrue though as Kebell says he was called to represent him after the rumours were already abroad about him being the Ripper, caught red-handed


        Thanks for the reply, Paul.
        Regrading the underlined sentence above...do you recall when Grainger said that Kebbell told the police he was the Ripper (irrespective of whether he did or not for the moment ) ?

        If Kebble did mention something along those lines to the police at that time as he eventually would 15 years later, its no wonder Grainger gave Kebble the boot ( if he actually did, that is ) in 1895.


        Thanks again, buddy,
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Howard

          It was when Grainger was talking to Forbes Winslow in 1910 that he totally denied being guilty of the attack in 1895 and then said that his solicitor had informed the police (in 1895) that he was the Ripper, but that the police "proved" otherwise, and since that time, his solicitor (Kebbell) had appeared in the press at various times, continuing to link Grainger with the Ripper crimes

          What appears to be the truth is that Grainger was considered a Ripper suspect before Kebbell was called to represent him, the police tried hard to find evidence of Grainger's guilt of the Ripper crimes but failed to find anything conclusive, and that it was planned to continue investigating Grainger for the Ripper crimes after his incarceration in 1895, but investigations ceased when Grainger died

          Also, there doesn't appear to be any mention of Kebbell and Grainger in the press between 1896 and 1910, though I think there may have been a mention around 1902 when Grainger was released, or perhaps circa 1904 when he was sent back to prison

          Kebbell says he could only speak of Grainger in 1910 because he was free of the solicitor/client restriction due to Grainger's death in prison, but even then he would only state that which was public knowledge already

          Kebbell was only encouraged to write in 1910 by Anderson's claim about a Polish Jew whereas Kebbell says Anderson knew full well that the Ripper was an Irishman

          Comment


          • #6
            PS

            Yes, you are correct Howard, there are a number of possible reasons why Grainger was not represented, him rejecting Kebbell is one of them

            You have to read between the lines a bit and at the moment I would consider the financial reason the most likely, with Kebbell refusing to defend a man he was convinced was JtR a close second, though Grainger rejecting any defence is also a possibility

            If anyone else has any suggestions I would be glad to hear them

            We have no trial details as they were considered unfit for public consumption so there is a possibility Grainger felt able to represent himself (according to Kebbell, Grainger appears to have had a good education)

            Comment


            • #7
              Here's Grainger's statement in which he says Kebbell "threw up his case" and left him undefended...
              " I swear solemnly that I was wrongly accused and sentenced by Sir Charles Hall, the Recorder on 27th March 1895, at the Old Bailey. I was set upon in Whitechapel by a lot of hooligans and robbed. I took out a knife I had in my pocket to protect myself. These hooligans then absconded, having wounded me. The police came down the court ; there happened to be a woman also in the court at the same time, and the supposition was I had attacked her. I deny it on my soul that I did anything : the hooligans had done this. A solicitor was asked to defend me at the preliminary proceedings at the police court. He did so, but threw up my case at a later date, leaving me to the tender mercies of an English court of justice, undefended. This solicitor informed the police that I was Jack the Ripper ; they made many investigations, and were convinced otherwise. Ever since then this same solicitor has been publishing letters in the press to the same effect ; also stating that ' his client' died in prison, but was the veritable Jack the Ripper. Seeing that you had received a letter from Australia, I have been brought to see you, asking you to take up my cause and have me reinstated. I was lately studying for the same profession as yourself, and was an Irish medical student."

              LS Forbes Winslow "Recollections of Forty Years"

              Comment


              • #8
                Hi How and Nemo,
                I always assumed Kebbel 'threw up' Grainger's case and left him undefended because either Grainger admitted to him in private, or Kebble believed, that Grainger was fully guilty of stabbing Alice Graham- but Grainger wouldn't plead guilty.

                Comment


                • #9
                  "The contract between barrister and client is based on the supposition of the innocence of the accused person, and this presumption needs to be preserved to the end. If the accused chooses to reveal his guilt, why, there was fraud in the retainer, and fraud vitiates any contract. Instance after instance occurs of barristers who have thrown up their briefs in court, and this is a public confession that their clients are in the wrong. Conscience must count. Supposing that a man after establishing confidential communications with his solicitor found it necessary to admit that he was Jack the Ripper. Would it be the duty of the solicitor to respect the confidence or to send for the police? There can hardly be any serious doubt on the subject."

                  The Irish law times and solicitors' journal: Volume 30 - Page 236
                  1896 -available as full text on google book
                  j

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    That's a good suggestion Deb, especially when you consider the comments of the Recorder (Sir Charles Hall) prior to the trial ie it suggests to me that the evidence against Grainger for the attack on Alice was quite overwhelming and his conviction practically a foregone conclusion

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I always assumed Kebbel 'threw up' Grainger's case and left him undefended because either Grainger admitted to him in private, or Kebble believed, that Grainger was fully guilty of stabbing Alice Graham- but Grainger wouldn't plead guilty.

                      -Debs-

                      Good point Debs...thanks...I had not thought of that.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact [email protected]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'll check a few sources but IIRC only Grainger said Kebbell threw up his case


                        Kebbell only stated that he represented Grainger in front of the magistrate but that Grainger went to Crown Court undefended with the possible implication that Kebbell wasn't expected to have defended him at the Old Bailey anyway

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nemo View Post
                          I'll check a few sources but IIRC only Grainger said Kebbell threw up his case


                          Kebbell only stated that he represented Grainger in front of the magistrate but that Grainger went to Crown Court undefended with the possible implication that Kebbell wasn't expected to have defended him at the Old Bailey anyway
                          Thanks Nemo, I think it would be interesting to try and find out if Kebbel did leave Grainger to fend for himself after believing in his guilt or if Grainger made that up after failing to make funds for a defence-It doesn't seem right that a poor man would be left undefended, simply for that reason, even on a very basic level- but a known guilty man (if he confessed in private) who wouldn't plead so, would garner less sympathy?
                          Grainger wasn't defending himself either so he definitely entered the Old Bailey trial without legal representation.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Debs, Neems....

                            It is a sincere shame that there wasn't a transcript made of the proceedings. Man, what I'd give to have a copy.

                            Not trying to sound conspiratorial in the least....but do either of you think or may have thought before....that during the proceedings, someone mentioned Grainger within the context of the (6 1/2 years gone by ) Whitechapel Murders at all ?
                            To Join JTR Forums :
                            Contact [email protected]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here's a reference from Lloyds Newspaper from April 1910 in which Kebbell states that he represented Grainger after suspicions of him being the Ripper were raised, that he approached Grainger's friends/family for funds and also refers to Grainger being undefended but doesn't really state that he threw up his case...

                              Lloyds170410.jpg

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X