ROUGH COPY
“Infanticide in the UK was a trial based off of the 1624 statute
It has been argued that the statute’s main focus was to discourage immorality and the birth of bastard children.”
Case Name
R.V MASSET
Citation
R.V MASSET, OB (Old Bailey?) 1899 (LDN, UK)
Facts
On October 27th Louisa Josephine Jemina Masset was accused of infanticide based off the 1624 Statute of Infanticide of her son Manfred Masset born April 24th, 1896. He was killed by asphyxiation and defacement. On October 30th, she was found in the streets with her brother and immediately arrested. At her trial, the accused stated in her oath that she delivered the child to two women with the last name browning at the London bridge station as arranged at 4 pm. …show more content…
The Assistant stated that there were only three types of shawls being sold at the store and the accused was very easily identifiable due to her distinctive french accent.
On October 27th At 2:40 pm on the day of the infanticide Ellen Rays, the bathroom attendant of the London train station noticed a child in a sailor suit with a mother forcing her child into the bathroom. The child looked very distressed and started to cry. Ellen Rays then proceeded to ask the child what was wrong to diffuse the situation and the accused sharply responded that he was only hungry. She left with the boy to supposedly get him a cake and upon her return at 7 she was no longer with the boy. At the time, Ellen Rays thought nothing of it.
On October 27th at approximately 8 pm, Joseph Standing found the body of the deceased child wrapped in a black shawl with no clothes on the same one sold to Louisa by the assistant. He noticed the severe Grievous-bodily-harm to the face and the body making the boy barely identifiable immediately he notified the police force.
post-mortem …show more content…
Louisa infringed the first half of the statue of infanticide. Infanticide is categorized under first-degree murder. The Crown reached the unanimous decision of finding Ms Masset guilty of committing the wilful murder of Manfred Manset because she infringed the 1624 statute of infanticide stating “that infanticide is the murder of a newborn child and will be punishable by a death.” The crown had to prove that Louisa did not transfer custody over to the two women, if she was in possession of the clothing that her son was wearing if the disfigured boy was, in fact, hers, and if the shawl had been purchased by her. When proving Louisa guilt the court had to prove both possession of her sons clothing and custody over her son during the hours of his death.
Reasons
The court indicated that the main issue was whether or not Louisa had transferred the care of her child over to the two women with the last name browning before the child was murdered. The court found the defendant had holes in her testimony as there was no receipt of the transfer of custody, nor no way to identify the two women that were involved in the transfer of custody. The court indicated that the evidence in testimonies further proved the accused guilt.
Evidence that further proved her guilt
“Infanticide in the UK was a trial based off of the 1624 statute
It has been argued that the statute’s main focus was to discourage immorality and the birth of bastard children.”
Case Name
R.V MASSET
Citation
R.V MASSET, OB (Old Bailey?) 1899 (LDN, UK)
Facts
On October 27th Louisa Josephine Jemina Masset was accused of infanticide based off the 1624 Statute of Infanticide of her son Manfred Masset born April 24th, 1896. He was killed by asphyxiation and defacement. On October 30th, she was found in the streets with her brother and immediately arrested. At her trial, the accused stated in her oath that she delivered the child to two women with the last name browning at the London bridge station as arranged at 4 pm. …show more content…
The Assistant stated that there were only three types of shawls being sold at the store and the accused was very easily identifiable due to her distinctive french accent.
On October 27th At 2:40 pm on the day of the infanticide Ellen Rays, the bathroom attendant of the London train station noticed a child in a sailor suit with a mother forcing her child into the bathroom. The child looked very distressed and started to cry. Ellen Rays then proceeded to ask the child what was wrong to diffuse the situation and the accused sharply responded that he was only hungry. She left with the boy to supposedly get him a cake and upon her return at 7 she was no longer with the boy. At the time, Ellen Rays thought nothing of it.
On October 27th at approximately 8 pm, Joseph Standing found the body of the deceased child wrapped in a black shawl with no clothes on the same one sold to Louisa by the assistant. He noticed the severe Grievous-bodily-harm to the face and the body making the boy barely identifiable immediately he notified the police force.
post-mortem …show more content…
Louisa infringed the first half of the statue of infanticide. Infanticide is categorized under first-degree murder. The Crown reached the unanimous decision of finding Ms Masset guilty of committing the wilful murder of Manfred Manset because she infringed the 1624 statute of infanticide stating “that infanticide is the murder of a newborn child and will be punishable by a death.” The crown had to prove that Louisa did not transfer custody over to the two women, if she was in possession of the clothing that her son was wearing if the disfigured boy was, in fact, hers, and if the shawl had been purchased by her. When proving Louisa guilt the court had to prove both possession of her sons clothing and custody over her son during the hours of his death.
Reasons
The court indicated that the main issue was whether or not Louisa had transferred the care of her child over to the two women with the last name browning before the child was murdered. The court found the defendant had holes in her testimony as there was no receipt of the transfer of custody, nor no way to identify the two women that were involved in the transfer of custody. The court indicated that the evidence in testimonies further proved the accused guilt.
Evidence that further proved her guilt