testifying in behalf of yourself.
Posted by P. Bingham on March 28, 1998 at 15:46:46:
In response to Semi-connected, written by ElaineL on March 27, 1998 at 20:49:13
I have not seen anything specifically about whether or not Mrs. Leigh-Perrot testified or was unable to testify in behalf of herself or this being a problem in her case. But here is a passage from "What Jane Austen Ate & Charles Dickens Knew." end of page 137-138. This might be where you got your information from?
"Until 1848 the police magistrate was not charged with evenhandedly weighing the evidence brought before him in a prosecution. On the contrary, the law presumed that a crime had been committed and that it was the magistrate's job to ferret out hte evidence that would prove it - a fact that accounts in part for the adversarial stance Mr. Fang so rapidly assumes when Oliver Twist is brought in on suspicioun of trying to steal from an old gentleman at a bookstall. Until 1898 the accused was not permitted to testify at all, even in his own behalf. A lwayer for the accused in felony cases was permitted no chance to question or cross-examine witnesses not could you see the 'written record of evidence' against you before trial until 1839. You were not even guaranteed a prompt trial...."
- Defendants testifying Linden 20:38:31 3/28/98 (3)
- Relax, Linden! Mrs. Leigh-Perrot DID speak! Laura W 23:19:41 4/22/98 (0)
- That is very irritating isn't it? P. Bingham 20:51:58 3/28/98 (1)
- off the subject just a wee bit... The Elgin adultery trial P. Bingham 13:16:35 3/30/98 (0)
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.