L
Lindsay658
Guest
Gabrielle Bompard
[td]In December 1890, Michel Eyraud, aged 47, and [[Gabrielle Bompard]], aged 21, were jointly tried in Paris for the [[GouffΓ© Case|(July 1899) murder of Toussaint-Augustin GouffΓ©]]. The sensational trial was of international interest; for instance, ''The Times'' published an extensive, detailed coverage of each of the trial's five sessions for its English readers, from ''[[Davison Dalziel, 1st Baron Dalziel of Wooler|Dalziel's News Agency]]'', along with additional comments by "Our own correspondent",<ref>"The GouffΓ© Murder", ''The Times'', 17 December 1890, p. 5; 18 December 1890, p. 3; 19 December 1890, p. 3; 20 December 1890, p. 5; and 22 December 1890, p. 5.</ref> as well as a strongly critical editorial commentary at the trial's completion.<ref>"On Saturday night, after a trial lasting five days ...", ''The Times'', 22 December 1890, p. 9.</ref>[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]Eyraud's guilt had soon been established (by his own admission); and, so, the remainder of the trial was entirely concerned with the part played by Bompard.<ref>[http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article208548411 The Eyraud-Bompard Trial: Conviction of Gouffe's Murderers: The Story of a Strange Crime, ''The (Adelaide) Express and Telegraph'', (Saturday, 31 January 1891), p. 2.]</ref><ref>Sims, 1921.</ref><ref>Hardy, 1950.</ref><ref>Irving (1918).</ref> [[Henri-Robert|Maitre Henri-Robert]], Bompard's advocate, argued that she had been hypnotized by Eyraud, her co-accused; and therefore, as Eyraud's ''involuntary'' accomplice, she could not be held responsible for GouffΓ©βs murder:<ref>In a similar case, Thomas Patten was murdered by his farmhand, Thomas E. McDonald, in [[Winfield, Kansas]] on 5 May 1894. Anderson Gray {{em-dash}} who had hypnotised McDonald, and compelled McDonald ''per medium'' of hypnotic suggestion to murder Patten {{em-dash}} was found guilty, and McDonald was acquitted (Appealed: Hypnotic Case will go to Supreme Court, ''The Hutchison (Kansas) News'', 31 December 1894, p. 1). Gray unsuccessfully appealed, and was sentenced to death for instigating Patten's murder (see: "Hypnotism not a Factor"; "Post-Hypnotic Responsibility"; and Ladd (1902)). In January 1897, [[Edmund N. Morrill]], the [[List of governors of Kansas#State of Kansas|Governor of Kansas]], pardoned Gray (see: '''AA.1''').</ref>[/td]
[td]Eyraud's guilt had soon been established (by his own admission); and, so, the remainder of the trial was entirely concerned with the part played by Bompard.<ref>[http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article208548411 The Eyraud-Bompard Trial: Conviction of Gouffe's Murderers: The Story of a Strange Crime, ''The (Adelaide) Express and Telegraph'', (Saturday, 31 January 1891), p. 2.]</ref><ref>Sims, 1921.</ref><ref>Hardy, 1950.</ref><ref>Irving (1918).</ref> [[Henri-Robert|Maitre Henri-Robert]], Bompard's advocate, argued that she had been hypnotized by Eyraud, her co-accused; and therefore, as Eyraud's ''involuntary'' accomplice, she could not be held responsible for GouffΓ©βs murder:<ref>In a similar case, Thomas Patten was murdered by his farmhand, Thomas E. McDonald, in [[Winfield, Kansas]] on 5 May 1894. Anderson Gray {{em-dash}} who had hypnotised McDonald, and compelled McDonald ''per medium'' of hypnotic suggestion to murder Patten {{em-dash}} was found guilty, and McDonald was acquitted (Appealed: Hypnotic Case will go to Supreme Court, ''The Hutchison (Kansas) News'', 31 December 1894, p. 1). Gray unsuccessfully appealed, and was sentenced to death for instigating Patten's murder (see: '''LD.1'''; "Post-Hypnotic Responsibility"; and Ladd (1902)). In January 1897, [[Edmund N. Morrill]], the [[List of governors of Kansas#State of Kansas|Governor of Kansas]], pardoned Gray (see: '''AA.1''').</ref>[/td] [td]::"The chief point at issue, however, was the degree of responsibility of Bompard, and whether there were sufficient grounds for believing that the series of complicated acts involved in the crime could be performed under hypnotic suggestion." {{em-dash}} ''The Lancet'', 3 January 1891.<ref name="LANCET">[https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/i...3_1_3514/sim_the-lancet_1891-01-03_1_3514.pdf The Eyraud-Bompard Trial in France, ''The Lancet'', Vol.1, No.3514, (3 January 1891), pp. 35-37.]</ref><ref>As Marchetti (2015) observes: "Among legal scholars, the idea of the existence of different psychological forces which were not controlled by a person, whether healthy or ill, could not be easily accepted. Medicine and law were only able to speak the same language if they made reference to an identical view of the human being." (p. 88)</ref><ref>Moreover, as Marchetti (2015) also observes: "the discovery of a new unconscious dimension in the psychological activity in human beings inevitably collided with the view of a person who is able to determine his own actions with consciousness, to whom law, in its punitive claim, had always made reference." (p. 89)</ref>[/td]
[td]::"The chief point at issue, however, was the degree of responsibility of Bompard, and whether there were sufficient grounds for believing that the series of complicated acts involved in the crime could be performed under hypnotic suggestion." {{em-dash}} ''The Lancet'', 3 January 1891.<ref name="LANCET">[https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/i...3_1_3514/sim_the-lancet_1891-01-03_1_3514.pdf The Eyraud-Bompard Trial in France, ''The Lancet'', Vol.1, No.3514, (3 January 1891), pp. 35-37.]</ref><ref>As Marchetti (2015) observes: "Among legal scholars, the idea of the existence of different psychological forces which were not controlled by a person, whether healthy or ill, could not be easily accepted. Medicine and law were only able to speak the same language if they made reference to an identical view of the human being." (p. 88)</ref><ref>Moreover, as Marchetti (2015) also observes: "the discovery of a new unconscious dimension in the psychological activity in human beings inevitably collided with the view of a person who is able to determine his own actions with consciousness, to whom law, in its punitive claim, had always made reference." (p. 89)</ref>[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 110: | Line 110: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]In December 1890, Michel Eyraud, aged 47, and [[Gabrielle Bompard]], aged 21, were jointly tried in Paris for the [[GouffΓ© Case|(July 1899) murder of Toussaint-Augustin GouffΓ©]]. The sensational trial was of international interest; for instance, ''The Times'' published an extensive, detailed coverage of each of the trial's five sessions for its English readers, from ''[[Davison Dalziel, 1st Baron Dalziel of Wooler|Dalziel's News Agency]]'', along with additional comments by "Our own correspondent",<ref>"The GouffΓ© Murder", ''The Times'', 17 December 1890, p. 5; 18 December 1890, p. 3; 19 December 1890, p. 3; 20 December 1890, p. 5; and 22 December 1890, p. 5.</ref> as well as a strongly critical editorial commentary at the trial's completion.<ref>"On Saturday night, after a trial lasting five days ...", ''The Times'', 22 December 1890, p. 9.</ref>[/td]Revision as of 22:09, 2 September 2025
[/td][td]In December 1890, Michel Eyraud, aged 47, and [[Gabrielle Bompard]], aged 21, were jointly tried in Paris for the [[GouffΓ© Case|(July 1899) murder of Toussaint-Augustin GouffΓ©]]. The sensational trial was of international interest; for instance, ''The Times'' published an extensive, detailed coverage of each of the trial's five sessions for its English readers, from ''[[Davison Dalziel, 1st Baron Dalziel of Wooler|Dalziel's News Agency]]'', along with additional comments by "Our own correspondent",<ref>"The GouffΓ© Murder", ''The Times'', 17 December 1890, p. 5; 18 December 1890, p. 3; 19 December 1890, p. 3; 20 December 1890, p. 5; and 22 December 1890, p. 5.</ref> as well as a strongly critical editorial commentary at the trial's completion.<ref>"On Saturday night, after a trial lasting five days ...", ''The Times'', 22 December 1890, p. 9.</ref>[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td] [td]Eyraud's guilt had soon been established (by his own admission); and, so, the remainder of the trial was entirely concerned with the part played by Bompard.<ref>[http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article208548411 The Eyraud-Bompard Trial: Conviction of Gouffe's Murderers: The Story of a Strange Crime, ''The (Adelaide) Express and Telegraph'', (Saturday, 31 January 1891), p. 2.]</ref><ref>Sims, 1921.</ref><ref>Hardy, 1950.</ref><ref>Irving (1918).</ref> [[Henri-Robert|Maitre Henri-Robert]], Bompard's advocate, argued that she had been hypnotized by Eyraud, her co-accused; and therefore, as Eyraud's ''involuntary'' accomplice, she could not be held responsible for GouffΓ©βs murder:<ref>In a similar case, Thomas Patten was murdered by his farmhand, Thomas E. McDonald, in [[Winfield, Kansas]] on 5 May 1894. Anderson Gray {{em-dash}} who had hypnotised McDonald, and compelled McDonald ''per medium'' of hypnotic suggestion to murder Patten {{em-dash}} was found guilty, and McDonald was acquitted (Appealed: Hypnotic Case will go to Supreme Court, ''The Hutchison (Kansas) News'', 31 December 1894, p. 1). Gray unsuccessfully appealed, and was sentenced to death for instigating Patten's murder (see: "Hypnotism not a Factor"; "Post-Hypnotic Responsibility"; and Ladd (1902)). In January 1897, [[Edmund N. Morrill]], the [[List of governors of Kansas#State of Kansas|Governor of Kansas]], pardoned Gray (see: '''AA.1''').</ref>[/td]
[td]Eyraud's guilt had soon been established (by his own admission); and, so, the remainder of the trial was entirely concerned with the part played by Bompard.<ref>[http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article208548411 The Eyraud-Bompard Trial: Conviction of Gouffe's Murderers: The Story of a Strange Crime, ''The (Adelaide) Express and Telegraph'', (Saturday, 31 January 1891), p. 2.]</ref><ref>Sims, 1921.</ref><ref>Hardy, 1950.</ref><ref>Irving (1918).</ref> [[Henri-Robert|Maitre Henri-Robert]], Bompard's advocate, argued that she had been hypnotized by Eyraud, her co-accused; and therefore, as Eyraud's ''involuntary'' accomplice, she could not be held responsible for GouffΓ©βs murder:<ref>In a similar case, Thomas Patten was murdered by his farmhand, Thomas E. McDonald, in [[Winfield, Kansas]] on 5 May 1894. Anderson Gray {{em-dash}} who had hypnotised McDonald, and compelled McDonald ''per medium'' of hypnotic suggestion to murder Patten {{em-dash}} was found guilty, and McDonald was acquitted (Appealed: Hypnotic Case will go to Supreme Court, ''The Hutchison (Kansas) News'', 31 December 1894, p. 1). Gray unsuccessfully appealed, and was sentenced to death for instigating Patten's murder (see: '''LD.1'''; "Post-Hypnotic Responsibility"; and Ladd (1902)). In January 1897, [[Edmund N. Morrill]], the [[List of governors of Kansas#State of Kansas|Governor of Kansas]], pardoned Gray (see: '''AA.1''').</ref>[/td] [td]::"The chief point at issue, however, was the degree of responsibility of Bompard, and whether there were sufficient grounds for believing that the series of complicated acts involved in the crime could be performed under hypnotic suggestion." {{em-dash}} ''The Lancet'', 3 January 1891.<ref name="LANCET">[https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/i...3_1_3514/sim_the-lancet_1891-01-03_1_3514.pdf The Eyraud-Bompard Trial in France, ''The Lancet'', Vol.1, No.3514, (3 January 1891), pp. 35-37.]</ref><ref>As Marchetti (2015) observes: "Among legal scholars, the idea of the existence of different psychological forces which were not controlled by a person, whether healthy or ill, could not be easily accepted. Medicine and law were only able to speak the same language if they made reference to an identical view of the human being." (p. 88)</ref><ref>Moreover, as Marchetti (2015) also observes: "the discovery of a new unconscious dimension in the psychological activity in human beings inevitably collided with the view of a person who is able to determine his own actions with consciousness, to whom law, in its punitive claim, had always made reference." (p. 89)</ref>[/td]
[td]::"The chief point at issue, however, was the degree of responsibility of Bompard, and whether there were sufficient grounds for believing that the series of complicated acts involved in the crime could be performed under hypnotic suggestion." {{em-dash}} ''The Lancet'', 3 January 1891.<ref name="LANCET">[https://dn790000.ca.archive.org/0/i...3_1_3514/sim_the-lancet_1891-01-03_1_3514.pdf The Eyraud-Bompard Trial in France, ''The Lancet'', Vol.1, No.3514, (3 January 1891), pp. 35-37.]</ref><ref>As Marchetti (2015) observes: "Among legal scholars, the idea of the existence of different psychological forces which were not controlled by a person, whether healthy or ill, could not be easily accepted. Medicine and law were only able to speak the same language if they made reference to an identical view of the human being." (p. 88)</ref><ref>Moreover, as Marchetti (2015) also observes: "the discovery of a new unconscious dimension in the psychological activity in human beings inevitably collided with the view of a person who is able to determine his own actions with consciousness, to whom law, in its punitive claim, had always made reference." (p. 89)</ref>[/td] [td][/td]
[td][/td]
Continue reading...
