Jones's 1906 Trial

This article was downloaded by: [Adams State University]
On: 04 December 2014, At: 10:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Studies in Gender and Sexuality

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hsgs20
“Romancing with a Wealth or Detail” Narratives or

Ernest Jones's 1906 Trial for Indecent Assault
Philip Kuhn
Published online: 01 Jul 2008.
To cite this article: Philip Kuhn (2002) “Romancing with a Wealth or Detail” Narratives or Ernest Jones's 1906 Trial for
Indecent Assault, Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 3:4, 344-378, DOI: 10.1080/15240650309349207
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15240650309349207
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Studies in Gender and Sexuality
3(4):344–378, 2002
“Romancing with a Wealth of Detail”

Narratives of Ernest Jones’s 1906 Trial
for Indecent Assault
Downloaded by [Adams State University] at 10:47 04 December 2014
Philip Kuhn

In March 1906 Dr. (Alfred) Ernest Jones was put on trial for
indecently assaulting two young “mentally defective” girls at a
special school in South East London. Jones claimed it was “the
most d isag reeable exper ience in [his] l ife.” A det ai led
reconstruction of the trial, drawn from contemporaneous records,
reveals significant f laws in Jones’s autobiographical account.
Reading those records in the light of early psychoanalytic theory
and recent British “political” texts on child sexual abuse—from
“Cleveland,” “Orkney,” and “Jason Dabbs” through to “Lost in
Care”—helps illuminate the dominant medicolegal ideologies that
informed Jones’s trial. Adapting Leo Strauss’s concept of
persecution reveals how details of the children’s allegations were
occluded from the trial reports. A jigsaw reconstruction of these
silences offers a restitutive narrative of the children’s persecuted
speech.


A poet and historian, Philip Kuhn has published a signif icant number of
articles on Freud’s early writings. He is currently writing a book on the
methodologies of reading and is preparing an exhibition exploring the visual
dimensions of words and texts.
I acknowledge the kind assistance of Rhys Griff ith, Alan Field, and other
members of the staff at The London Metropolitan Archives. I also thank the
anonymous readers of Studies in Gender and Sexuality for their invaluable
comments during the revision of this paper.
344 © 2002 The Analytic Press

Ernest Jones’s 1906 Trial 345

Jones is an enigma to me. He is so incomprehensible that

it’s quite uncanny. Is there more in him than meets the eye,
or nothing at all? At any rate he is far from simple; an
intellectual liar (no moral judgement intended!) hammered
by the vicissitudes of fate and circumstances into many facets.
But the result? Too much adulation on one side, too much
opportunism on the other?
—Carl Jung to Sigmund Freud, 12 July 1908
I n his autobiography Ernest Jones (1879–1958) maintained

that what had happened to him in early 1906 was “the most
disagreeable experience in [his] life” (Jones, 1959, p. 145). It
occurred when he was 27, working “a quarter-time appointment
. . . i n the Education Department of the London County
Council [L.C.C.], where [he] was put in charge of the mental
defective schools” (p. 116). Accused of hav ing “behaved
indecently” against “two small children” whose speech he had
recently tested, Jones (p. 145) was ar rested, tried, and
subsequently acquitted for the a l leged of fense. Jones’s
biographers have uncritically accepted Jones’s account of the
1906 Affair (Greenland, 1961, p. 138; Girard, 1972, p. 23;
Davies, 1979, p. 25; Brome, 1982, pp. 39-41; Paskauskas, 1985,
pp. 94, 98). Their closure is at best naïve because those same
biographers have also recognized that the 1906 trial was part
of “a complex series of events, which are difficult enough to
understand” and which when, taken together, clearly “changed
the whole course of [Jones’s] life” (Davies, 1990, p. 49).
Jones was working for the L.C.C. only because of necessity.
In late 1903 he had been asked to resign as Resident Medical
Officer from the North Eastern [London] Children’s Hospital
(NE 1903, p. 338; Jones, 1959, pp. 114–116). Following that
resignation he was forced, in increasingly desperate attempts
to be elected to the permanent London Hospital job he craved,
to accept a series of low-grade, part-time, temporary hospital
or quasi-medical appointments. In late 1907 he secured another
part-time post as pathologist and medical registrar to the West
End Hospital for Nervous Diseases, but within six months, and
less than two years after his acquittal for indecent assault, Jones
346 Philip Kuhn

was once again accused of sexual impropriety: “talking . . .

about sexual topics” with a 10-year-old girl who had recently
been admitted to the hospital with “an hysterical paralysis of
the left arm” (Jones, 1959, p. 150). Following an investigation,
he was asked to resign. With another “black mark to [his] name”
(Paskauskas, 1993, p. 196) Jones concluded, no doubt correctly,
that “all hope [had] vanished of ever getting on to the staff of
any neurological hospital in London” (Jones, 1959, pp. 150–
151). His only option was to emigrate to Canada (Paskauskas,

1993, p. 2).
PERSECUTED SPEECH
Although historians of psychoanalysis have long known about

the 1906 affair, they have made no serious attempt to trace, let
alone read, the contemporaneous records of Jones’s trial. This
gap in the biography of a man who was arguably one of the
most important figures in the early psychoanalytic movement
(Roazen, 1975, pp. 348–349) is worthy of comment, not least
because it touches the contentious issues now generally known
as child sexual abuse (Hacking, 1995, pp. 62–65).
By a strange chronological coincidence Jones’s 1906 trial for
indecent child assault occur red in the same year Freud
(1896a,b,c) made public his “correction” to his 1895–1897
theories, which claimed that the cause of his adult patients’
neuroses was their having “unconscious memories” of actual
childhood sexual traumas. Freud (1906) now claimed that he
had “over-estimated the frequency” with which his adult patients
had been sexually traumatized as children and therefore
concluded that their accounts—which he now termed “phantasies
of seduction”—were probably “attempts at fending off memories
of [their] own sexual activity (infantile masturbation)” (p. 274).
This correction constitutes an important component in Freud’s
theory subsequently codified under the rubric of the “Oedipus
complex” (Freud, 1910, p. 171; 1916–1917, pp. 207–208, 329;
1925, p. 55; Kerr, 1993, pp. 249f). While Freud’s abandonment
of his subsequently misnamed “seduction theory” (Kuhn, 1997,
pp. 118–119) has been the subject of heated debate (Macmillan,
1991, pp. 636–640; Makari, 1998, p. 857), there seems little

doubt that his theoretical correction encouraged several

gener at ions of psychoana lyst s, Jones (1911) included
(pp. 14–15; see also Nunberg and Federn, 1962, p. 394), seriously
to neglect “the exogenous factor” of trauma in the etiology of
the neuroses (Abraham, 1907, p. 17; Ferenczi, 1932, p. 156).
T his unea sy encounter bet ween t he d iscourses of
psychoanalysis and child sexual abuse has recently been brought
into sharper focus following a series of high-profile British child
sexual abuse cases: Cleveland (Butler-Sloss, 1991), Congleton,

Nottingham, Manchester, and Rochdale (Campbell and Jones,
1999), Orkney (Clyde, 1992), Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Hunt, 1994),
and Gwynedd and Clwyd (Waterhouse, 2000). National and local
authorities set up “independent inquiries” into some of these
cases, and their published reports now constitute an important
component of a new British “political” discourse on child sexual
abuse [the Reports]. Their inquiries covered many aspects, but
perhaps the most contentious has been, and still remains, “the
question of whether or not to believe the child where there is
concern about sexual abuse.” At first sight the answer to this
question might seem self-evident, but a close reading of the
texts reveals that their articulations concern not what the
children actually said but how adults should interpret—or make
sense of—what the children mean when they “speak of abuse”
(Butler-Sloss, 1991, p. 204). This peculiar weighting, which
also resonates with Freud’s (1918) framing patient’s accounts
in terms of “phantasy or a real experience” (p. 97; Scott, 1996,
pp. 1–17), has important implications for how we read the
Reports.
The current orthodoxy holds that children alleging abuse
should be encouraged to speak freely (Butler-Sloss, 1991, p. 204),
but for reasons never explained the Reports invariably failed to
publish any accounts from children who articulated their
experiences. With one or two minor exceptions (Waterhouse,
2000, pp. 87–89, 117) the children’s verbatim testimonies were
occluded. With some irony the very allegations that constituted
the impetus for several of these Reports must be mediated
through an of f icial adult discourse that paraphr ases or
comments on reports from other adults who listened to and
assessed the children’s accounts of the allegations under review.
348 Philip Kuhn

Censorship, with its allusions to indecency and sexual depravity

(Parkes 1996, pp. 3–7), cannot adequately explain this
phenomenon, because official guidelines continually stress that
children are “to be listened to with care and to be taken
seriously” (Clyde, 1992, p. 222; Hunt, 1994, p. 153).
More helpful is Leo Strauss’s (1952) concept of persecution,
suggesting, as it does “a variety of phenomena, ranging from
the most cruel type . . . to the mildest, which is social ostracism”
(p. 32). Although Strauss was concerned with how philosophers

express heterodox views in a dangerous world, his concept also
offers new ways of reading the Reports, which silenced children’s
verbatim speech. Children might have hypothetical freedoms
to speak of sexual abuse but are ultimately reliant on how adults
listen to and react to their stories. The prevailing culture might
encourage children to speak freely, but it also often refuses to
take their accounts seriously.
This disjuncture in the dialogical encounter can now be
identified in the Reports. By declining to reproduce children’s
allegations, those Reports denied a forum for the children’s
testimonies and, at the same time, restructured their accounts
into a narrative, or narratives, that ultimately reinforced
comfortable cultural expectations. In Strauss’s (1952) terms,
the children’s freedom to speak “[was] now suppressed and
replaced by a compulsion to coordinate speech with such views
as the Government believes to be expedient” (p. 22). 1 It is
precisely this “compulsion to coordinate speech” that leads to
persecution because it “paves the way for conviction by silencing
contradiction” (p. 23). “Persecution, then, gives rise to a peculiar
technique of writing, and therewith to a peculiar type of
literature, in which the truth about all crucial things is presented
exclusively between the lines” (p. 25, italics added).
Strauss’s concept of persecution, therefore, also encourages
“reading between the lines” (p. 32). In this way the concept of
persecuted speech2 offers ways for reading texts of child sexual

1
Note, for example, the suppression from mainland Britain of The Research
Team (1990).
2
This precise phrase, which does not appear in Strauss (1952), is taken
from de Man (1989, p. 106).

abuse not only for what they say but also for what they occlude.
Such texts can now potentially become the embodiment of those
prior persecuted voices which once struggled to be heard in a
dangerously orthodox world.
THE LIMITS OF THE PRESENT INQUIRY
The following reconstruction of the events surrounding Jones’s

trial is drawn from my readings of all the extant documents.

But, because all those texts effectively represent, or reproduce,
a dominant early 20th-century medicolegal discourse, I have
had to find new and different ways to read them. I have had to
read, for instance, for the children’s persecuted speech against
the backdrop of intertextual dialogues between the orthodox
d iscourse of psychoana lysis and the cur rent heterodox
discourses on child sexual abuse (Kuhn, 1997, pp. 119–120).
These various readings have revealed that the specific allegations
against Jones are occluded not only from Jones’s own account
but also from all the other texts relating to the trial. Reading
for the children’s persecuted speech has enabled me, therefore,
to offer a restitutive narrative of their silenced accounts. I believe
that these readings have important ramifications not only for
Jones’s biography but also, more generally, for the history of
psychoanalysis and of child sexual abuse because, as Nicola
Lacey (1998) has pointed out, if a [rape] trial does not “allow
all parties to advance their points of view, the valuable prospect
of the trial as a space not only for the examination of past events
but also for political contestation of their interpretation cannot
be realised” (p. 122, italics added).
Taking as my starting point that “‘history’ is a rhetorical and
political argument about the present” (Jacobitti, 2000, p. xi) I
now offer textual space for that political contestation between
all the different and competing narratives surrounding Jones’s
trial. But I also resist the temptation to jump to easy conclusions
by declining to comment retrospectively on the innocence or
guilt of Jones. If there is an ultimate interpretation to be made—
or found—then I would rather leave that to the discretion of my
readers.
350 Philip Kuhn

“PHANTASIES OF SEDUCTION”3
First a brief résumé of Jones’s (1959) own articulation of the

1906 affair:
One morning, early in 1906, Dr. Kerr, the head of the

Department, sent me an unusual summons, to meet him at
a certain school for mental defectives. I was puzzled to know
what he wanted, and should have been more perturbed had

I known. To my amazement and horror I was confronted,
on arriving there, with a teacher who said that two small
children in her class maintained I had behaved indecently
during the speech test I had carried out with them: what
was worse, she appeared to believe them [p. 145].
Although Dr. Kerr
wished to dismiss the matter, he felt obliged, in the face of

the teacher’s attitude, to report it to the Education
Committee. They were naturally at a loss, and after a delay
of a couple of weeks made the panicky decision of placing
the matter in the hands of the police. Presumably the fear
of the public weighed more with them than any duty of
protecting their servants from risks in their work [p. 145].
Jones was arrested and taken to a police cell where he spent the
night while “outside, the evening papers made the most of the
sensation on their placards.” The following morning he was
arraigned and remanded on bail. Then “for two dreadful months
[Jones] lived on the edge of an abyss” (pp. 146–147) until, finally,
“the magistrate decided to dismiss the case, and he afterwards
took the unusual step of sending me a friendly and sympathetic
letter” (p. 147).

3
According to English Law, “Seduction means inducing a girl to part with
her virtue for the first time (R. v Moon (1910), 74 J.P.231)” (quoted in Stevenson
and Hague, 1930, p. 149n).

GRAVE ALLEGATIONS BY DEPTFORD CHILDREN
On 11 July 1905 the L.C.C. Education Committee appointed

Alfred Ernest Jones “as one of their local assistant medical
officers in connection with their schools for [physically and]
mentally deficient and epileptic children” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30,
p. 8e; CDL, 1906, 3/29, p. 3c; Jones, 1907a, p. 98).4 Jones was
one of “twenty [quarter-time temporary] local assistant medical
officers (Medical Inspectors) appointed [that] summer [who]

began their duties on 1 September 1905” (LCC, 1906e, p. 7;
1908, p. 4). Under a new regime
the head teachers were instructed to make lists of all the

children known to them as being in any way defective and
present them for medical inspecti o n . . . . The general
routine is for the Medical Inspector to visit the school
department; go round the premises and see the classes at
work; take note of all hygienic matters, and then inspect the
children whose names appear on the teachers’ lists [LCC, 1906e,
p. 7, italics added].
Jones was assigned Division 6, covering parts of South-East

London, and required to make a weekly report on the schools
he visited (LCC, 1906e, p. 7; Jones, 1907a, p. 99). He may also
have been deputed “to enquire” (Hale, 1971, p. 213) into speech
and language disorders to “study . . . the development of the
speech faculty at school age” (LCC, 1907a, p. 27). “Among the
various establishments it was his duty to attend was the school
known as the Edward-street school for Mentally Defective
children, Deptford” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e).
Edward-street offered places for mentally [MD] and physically
[PD] “defective children” for boys and girls between the ages of
seven and fifteen. 5 With the opening of Randall-place in early

4
Newspaper references are cited by year, month/day, page number with
the relevant column in letters.
5
The precise definition and diagnosis of mental deficiency in childhood
remains unclear, but see Potts (1908).
352 Philip Kuhn

1906, the PD unit was substantially reduced (LCC, 1905–1906,

p. 388; 1906c, p. 499), leaving the MD unit catering for, on
average, about 112 children. Mrs. Amelia Hall had worked in
the MD unit since its inception in 1894 and had been
headteacher since 1897. She had four women teachers, as
assistants (LCC, 1906d, pp. 26, 36, App. 2, p. 43; 1907b, pp. 11,
24; KM, 1906, 3/30, p. 6f).
When Jones first visited the school on 1 September 1905, the
same day he started work, he was accompanied by Mrs. Burgwin,

the superintendent for Special Schools. She was “present during
the whole of [his] examination of the children.” He next visited
at some unspecified date but there was “no complaint from any
child” although it remains unclear whether or not he was
supervised on that occasion. When he next visited, on Friday 2
March 1906, he arrived at about 2:10 PM , had a short talk with
Mrs. Hall, and then walked with her to the teacher’s room, where
he was to conduct the examinations.6 Mrs. Hall gave him
the family history book, which gave particulars of the children

in the institution. When she returned with the pen and ink
she noticed an alteration in the furniture, the armchair
having been shifted, and the defendant was moving the
other chairs. [Mrs. Hall] spoke to him as to the order the
children were to come in to be examined, and he remarked,
“It does not matter” and added “Would you tell me when
you send them in of any special case of speech defection?”
[KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e, italics added].
Being short staffed, Mrs. Hall “went to a class room, called out
a certain number of children who were placed in a line and told
them to go in separately.” She repeated this at “about 3 PM .” At
3:10, while Jones was examining a girl named Elizabeth Overton,
one of the assistants brought him a cup of tea. Mrs. Hall “had
occasion to go into the room” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8f) thrice

6
Although the following reconstruction is drawn from a number of different
newspaper reports, all the various accounts are always based on Mr. Elliot’s
opening statement to the court on 30 March and Mrs. Hall’s evidence to the
Court on 30 March, 13 April, and 27 April.

(LBN, 1906, 4/12, p. 6e) on each occasion to inform Jones that

the child he was about to examine had “a special speech defect.”
She “had no recollection of entering the room when [Jones]
was examining a child.” When Mrs. Hall escorted Dorothy
Freeman into the room at about 3:30 PM —Dorothy being “‘a case
of speech defection’”—she noticed Jones “was then sitting at
the end of the table and the child would sit in a chair facing
him” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, pp. 8f). “Dr. Jones’s chair was only
about six or seven inches away from that occupied by the

children” (LBN, 1906, 4/12, p. 6e). At about 3:45 “a boy named
William Blowey made a communication to [Mrs Hall] and in
consequence of what he said she sent for a lad named [Walter]
Johnson.” Walter, who had recently “come out of the room after
being examined by [Jones], made a complaint to Mrs. Hall in
relation to the [doctor’s] conduct.” Mrs. Hall “made light of
the matter, but kept [Walter] in a room apart from the others,
and under her own supervision.” Jones finished his examinations
at about 4:00 PM and had a short conversation with Mrs. Hall in
her room. Asked “how many children he had examined that
afternoon,” she replied, “About 25.” Jones “remarked ‘They came
in very quickly the last few minutes’” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8f,
italics added). Jones informed Mrs. Hall that he would return
“on the following Friday” 9 March. “After [Jones] had left, the
boy Johnson was reprimanded by Mrs. Hall for making a
complaint which she then regarded as groundless” (KMGD,
1906, 3/30, p. 8e,).
As school ended, “Dorothy Freeman, Fanny Harrigan, both
about 13 years of age . . . entered with complaints.” Mrs. Hall
called them into her room separately. Having interviewed them,
she told them, “There must be some mistake and directed [them]
to go home.” Elizabeth Overton, aged 14,7 then came forward
with the same complaint, and Mrs. Hall now realized she could
no longer ignore the matter. As she later told the court, she was
by now “naturally very much astonished by the statements of
the girls, especially as she had [previously] altogether dismissed

7
The press reports were not always clear about the children’s ages. They
consistently gave Elizabeth’s age as 10, although she was almost 14 at the
time of the incident.
354 Philip Kuhn

t he complaint of t he boy Johnson.” T hat even ing “in

consequence of these complaints [Mrs. Hall] wrote to Mrs.
Burgwin her superior,” who contacted Dr. James Kerr, the L.C.C.
Medical Officer for Education, and he contacted Dr. Jones,
informed him of the allegations, and arranged for them to travel
together to Edward-street (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e; KM, 1906,
4/27, p. 7a).
DR. KERR’S QUASI-INDEPENDENT INQUIRY
On Monday, 5 March 1906, Dr. Kerr, as “representative of the

L.C.C.,” arrived at the school with Dr. Jones (SEH, 1906, 3/30,
p. 5b). Dr. Jones asked Mrs. Hall “if she had ever had anything
of the kind before, to which she said ‘No, not during the whole
of the twelve years I have been here’ ” (KMGD, 1906, 4/13,
p. 5a). Dr. Kerr, in the presence of Dr. Jones and Mrs. Hall,
then “subjected [the children] to cross-examination. . . . The
boy Johnson was called but was unable to make any definite
charge against [Jones]” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e). Dr. Kerr
and Mrs. Hall were at a loss to know whether this was “the result
of the reprimand he had received or loss of memory” (SEH,
1906, 3/30, p. 5b). But Walter did say that “Dr. Jones had asked
him what different things, including his trousers, were made
of.” Dr. Kerr then questioned Elizabeth Overton, who said
that [Dr. Jones] asked her questions in sums and reading

and a lso an objectionable question. The girl Fanny
Harrigan, who was brought from the Stanley Street laundry
centre, was also examined by Dr. Kerr as to what had taken
place. Har rigan said that after putting questions in
arithmetic, etc., Dr. Jones spoke and acted in a grossly
indecent manner. Mrs. Freeman and her daughter Dorothy
were next sent for, and were shown into the room together.
In answer to Dr. Kerr, the girl said Dr. Jones requested her
to read and to do a simple sum, afterwards asking similar
questions to those which had been put to Overton and
Harrigan and requesting her to act as the girl Harrigan
had done.8 The girl said she declined to do so, if she did

her mother would beat her and put her to bed. When the
girl had left Dr. Kerr turned to Mrs. Freeman and said,
“ This is a very serious thing, Mrs. Freeman,” to which she
answered, “I call it shameful, disgraceful, and disgusting.”
Dr. Jones said “My good woman, if I had done such a thing
I should deserve to be horsewhipped and placed in an
asylum.” Mrs. Freeman then called him several names and
said he was only fit to be burned. No further reply was
made to these reproaches by Dr. Jones, but Dr. Kerr said,

“Mrs. Freeman, you must be reasonable. You are labouring
under a delusion.9 These things do not and cannot occur
in our schools.” Mrs. Freeman said, “How do you know I
am labouring under a delusion? You were not there and I
believe my child is speaking the truth.” To this, Dr. Kerr
replied, “I am afraid the girls have made this up between
themselves, and I would like to know where it originated.
That will be the thing to f ind out. You go home Mrs.
Freeman, and make your mind easy, as I feel sure this has
never occurred.” Mrs Freeman answered, “If you try to
quieten me, you cannot quieten my husband” [KMGD, 1906,
4/13, p. 5a].
Dr. Kerr suggested that he meet with Mr. Freeman but Mrs.
Freeman replied that her husband “cannot afford to lose a day’s
work.” Jones “suggested Mr. Freeman should call upon Dr. Kerr
on the following Saturday” (WK A, 1906, 4/10, p. 5g; KMGD,
13/4/1906, 4/13 p. 5a). Following another exchange between

8
Notwithstanding the reporter’s shorthand, it is clear, from the different
narratives, that Dorothy first was interviewed by Mrs. Hall on the Friday and
then repeated her own account to Mrs. Hall and Drs. Kerr and Jones on the
Monday.
9
Dr. Kerr was, indeed, laboring under a delusion. Just two weeks later the
headmaster of Fosdene-road boys’ school was dismissed for “serious
misconduct” (WK A, 1906, 3/20); and some four months later a workman
employed at the “Alma” Council School in Bermondsey was convicted for an
“indecent assault on one of the boys at the school” (LCC, 1906b, pp. 243,
280).
356 Philip Kuhn

Mrs. Freeman and Dr. Jones, Mrs. Freeman “intimated that they
would not allow the matter to rest there, but would communicate
with the police” (KMGD, 1906, 30/3/, p. 8e).
While Dr.. Kerr’s quasi-independent inquiry may well have
been consistent with the prevailing medicolegal opinions and
practices (Jackson, 2000, pp. 79–89; Smart, 1999, pp. 398–403)
it clearly breached current child protection guidelines (Butler-
Sloss, 1991, p. 204; Hunt, 1994, p. 80; Waterhouse, 2000,
pp. 844f). This anachronistic reading is important because it

helps inform the ideological under pinning of Dr. Kerr’s
subsequent (crucial) role in this affair. He had no business
traveling to Edward Street with Dr. Jones or to invite him to be
present when he inter v iewed the chi ldren (Smit h and
Woodhead, 1999, p. 27). What is more, Dr. Kerr knew Doctor
Jones personally as a colleague engaged in important work in a
hard-pressed service (LCC, 1907a, pp. 27f, 45; 1908, pp. 25f)
and as a fellow researcher in “allochiria, that rarest symptom”
of hysteria (Kerr, 1892, p. 1181; Jones, 1907b, p. 832; 1907c, p.
504). Dr. Kerr must, therefore, have found it inconceivable that
Jones could have been capable of such behavior and probably
succumbed to that “human susceptibility to which all adults are
vulnerable, namely a defence mechanism which permits people
to block out from the mind a truth which is painful or awkward”
(Hunt, 1994, pp. 80–81). So Dr. Kerr would, thus, have found it
difficult to take the children’s allegations “seriously” (Butler-
Sloss, 1991, p. 204). By the end of his inquiries, his mind was
made up. As he subsequently told the court, he “formed the
deliberate impression that the girls had made the story up
between themselves” (CDL, 1906, 5/1, p. 8d), an opinion no
doubt conf irmed because the a lleg ations were made by
“mentally defective children,” who, as everybody knew, “were
prone to a distorted view of things and to invent charges”
(KMGD, 1906, 5/4, pp. 5f). But Dr. Kerr, bound to follow
procedures, suspended Jones from all duties (LCC, 1906a,
p. 983; Jones, 1959, p. 147) pending his “formal report of the
circumstances” to the L.C.C. (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e).
Dr. Kerr’s report was tabled at the 12 March meeting of the
L.C.C.’s Education Committee’s Genera l Pur poses Sub-

Committee whereupon the members “resolved” that Mr.

Shepherd, chairman of the Education Committee, consider the
matter further with Mr. Allen and Sir W.J. Collins (LCC, 1906b,
p. 129). I have been unable to trace either Dr. Kerr’s report or
the deliberations of Mr. Shepherd’s ad hoc committee, but the
gist of their conclusions is evident in the opening statement of
the prosecution’s case against Jones:
It is well known that extraordinary allegations were made

against doctors and others . . . and the L.C.C. after
receiving a formal report of the circumstances were inclined
to proceed no further than order Dr. Jones’s suspension from
the school [KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e, italics added].
Before these recommendations could be sanctioned, however,

Mr. and Mrs. Freeman took matters into their own hands (SEH,
1906, 3/30, p. 5b).
CERTAIN MARKS HAVE BEEN FOUND
The chronology of events suggests an abortive meeting between

Mr. Freeman and Dr. Kerr on Saturday, 10 March (KMGD, 1906,
4/13, p. 5a; WK A, 1906, 4/10, p. 5g). On Monday, 12 March,
Mr. Freeman, “the father of [Dorothy],” made a formal complaint
at Blackheath Police Station. On the strength of that complaint,
Detective Sergeant [DS] Beavis took a statement from Fanny
Harrigan, and in consequence of what she told him he visited
“the teacher’s room at Edward-street school [on 15 March] in
order to examine the table cloth” (KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7c) that
had been “on the table in [the] room” where Jones conducted
his examinations (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e; SEH, 1906, 4/27,
p. 3c). Beavis then gave the “green baize table cloth . . . to Mrs
Hall who placed it under lock and key” (KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7c)
until the following day, when he returned and took it “to Dr.
[Dudley] Burney, the divisional [Police] surgeon [at New Cross
Road], for analysis, and [Burney] discovered certain marks upon
it which were regarded of great importance” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p.
8e, italics added).
358 Philip Kuhn

The police concluded “that the matter was one which should
be enquired into by the magistrate” (SEH, 1906, 3/30, p. 5b)
and prepared papers for Jones’s arrest.
When the Sub-Committee met on 19 March and were
informed of the police inquiries, they instructed the ad hoc
committee “to present their report direct to the [Education]
Committee” for discussion at its next meeting, scheduled for
Wednesday afternoon, 21 March (LCC, 1906b, p. 140). But
events overtook them, because on Tuesday morning, 20 March,

Detective Inspector [DI] Belcher “received a warrant at the court
for the arrest of Dr. Jones” for “indecently assaulting Dorothy
Florence Freeman and Fanny Harrigan” (KMGD, 1906, 3/23,
pp. 5f) contrary to “the [1885] Criminal Law Amendment Act”
(SEH, 1906, 4/27, p. 3c).10 Belcher and Beavis then traveled
the seven miles to 13 Harley Street, London, where, at about
two o’clock, Beavis informed Dr. Jones that
he had a warrant for his arrest. [Jones] said “You surprise

me. Is it in connection with the Edward-street matter?” [DI
Belcher] replied “Yes,” when [Jones] remarked “Why it only
rests on the statement of those two girls?” [Belcher] replied,
“No, the table-cover has been examined, and certain marks have
been found upon it.” [Jones] accompanied [the police] to
Blackheath-road police station where he was charged, and
he then remarked, “I have nothing to say except that I am
innocent” [KMGD, 1906, 3/23, p. 5f, italics added].
The following day, Wednesday, 21 March, Jones was brought

before Mr. Ernest Baggallay, sitting at the Greenwich Police
Court, and remanded on bail of two sureties of £200 each—
from Mr. Thomas Jones (Jones’s father) and a Dr. Bardsley.
IN THE INTERESTS OF DR. JONES
The police decision to arrest Jones left the L.C.C. in a quandary

because they had a duty to act not only “to protect the children
under their charge, [but] also in the interests of [Jones], a

10
Jones was probably charged under The Act, 1885, sections 3(1), 4, and 5.

distinguished man against whom there was not the slightest

suggestion of misconduct” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e, italics added).
The minutes of the Education Committee reveal how they
squared this circle at their 21 March meeting.
We have considered a report by the medical officer which

was referred to us on 12 March 1906. . . . It appears that
the allegations which were before the Sub-Committee, and
were referred to in the medical off icer’s report, were

supplemented on the morning of the 19th instant by further
material which had been procured by the police. The allegations
and additional material were placed before the chairman
of t he Counc i l who in a l l t he circumst ances g ave
instructions for the prosecution which the police had
decided to institute to be conducted on behalf of the Council
[LCC, 1906a, pp. 983, italics added].
The minutes were a formality. When Jones was arraigned

earlier that morning it was not the police who sought to “prove
the arrest and then apply for a remand” but “Mr. J. W. Godfrey
of the solicitor’s department of the LCC” (KMGD, 1906, 3/23,
pp. 5f). Mr. Elliot (instructed by Mr. Godfrey) subsequently made
the point explicit when he “emphasised the fact that he was not
there in the character of a vindictive prosecutor, but rather to
bring out all the facts quite as much in the interests of Dr. Jones as
of the prosecution” (KMGD, 1906, 4/13, p. 5a, italics added).
Nobody seems to have remarked on this conf lict of interest.11
ROMANCING WITH A WEALTH OF DETAIL
Jones’s f irst adjourned hearing occurred on Wednesday, 28

March at Greenwich Police Court. Mr. Elliot, counsel for the
prosecution, set out the facts of the case as he had gathered

11
In 1895 Mr. Justice Grantham “stated that it was the duty of the police
not the [National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children] to
prosecute cases of unlawful sex under the Criminal Law Amendment Act”
(Jackson, 2000, p. 62). Unlike the LCC, the NSPCC did not have an obvious
conf lict of interest in the cases they prosecuted. See also Rose, 1991, p. 234.
360 Philip Kuhn

them from Mrs. Hall’s witness statement, Dr. Kerr’s report, and
the police report of their inquiries. In his lengthy preamble he
seems to have made only passing reference to the fact that “the
allegations of the girls . . . though differing somewhat in detail,
were substantially in agreement against the doctor.” He also seems
to have made only passing reference to the police surgeon’s
analysis of the table cover. Then, after questioning Herbert Jno.
Sturgess, of the L.C.C. architect’s department, about the layout
of the school, Mr. Elliot called Mrs. Hall. She gave evidence
concerning the events of Friday, 2 March, including, in detail,
the various interviews and conversations that had occurred first
with Jones, then with William Blowey and Walter Johnson, and,
after Jones’s departure, with the other three children involved
(KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e–f, italics added).
The second adjourned hearing occurred on Tuesday, 10 April.

For the first and only time, Jones’s description appears in some
of the press reports, where he is said to be “dapper and alert-
looking, occupied a seat behind his solicitor. 12 Although a trif le
pale, he frequently laughed and seemed quite unembarrassed,
while during the examination of . . . Mrs. Hall, . . . he took
copious notes in shorthand.
In the proceedings, “Mrs. Hall was further examined by Mr.
Elliot, as to what took place on March 5th—three days after the
alleged assaults—when Dr. Jones, accompanied by Dr. Kerr,
ar rived at the school” (KMGD, 1906, 4/13, p. 5a). Mr.
Bodkin,13 Counsel for Dr. Jones, then cross-examined Mrs. Hall
about the layout of the school and classrooms. She could not
remember the order the children went in to see Jones, but she
knew that “[a]ll four children named were in one class.” She

12
Throughout the proceedings Jones was never required to stand in the
dock.
13
Later Sir Archibald Bodkin [1862–1957]. By 1906 he was a highly
experienced barrister who had worked as a junior Treasury Council at the
Old Bailey since 1892 where he rapidly built a reputation “as one of the
leading criminal advocates of the day.” According to one source “the law for
him meant criminal prosecutions for his defence briefs were rare” (Williams and
Palmer, 1971, p. 119, italics added).

“was to and fro among the various children in the class-room

all the afternoon, and filled up the file of children waiting for
examination by the doctor” (EEM, 1906, 4/10, p. 2g).
“For reasons of convenience” (SEH, 1906, 4/27, p. 3c) the
third adjourned hearing took place, by “special arrangement”
on Monday, 23 April at Tower Bridge Police Court, this to enable
Mr. Baggallay to sit “all day . . . in order to get the case finished”
as soon as possible (LBN, 1906, 5/3, p. 5c). Mrs. Hall “concluded
her evidence, the reading over of which occupied half an hour”

(SEH, 1906, 4/27, p. 3c). Then Dorothy Freeman, aged 13, was
called to give “evidence as to the alleged conduct of [Dr. Jones]”
(SEH, 1906, 4/27, p. 3c).
She said she understood that if she told a lie she would be
punished. She remembered being at the school on March
2nd and after being out to play going into the doctor’s room.
They were the only two there. The doctor was sitting at a
table. She read a book and the doctor asked her some words
and also gave her sums. He asked her further questions, as
she alleged, of a rude nature. She then described the nature
of the alleged assault. Witness said she tried to get away,
but he would not let her go. She did not call out. Nobody
came into the room while she was there. She then returned
to the classroom. She did not say anything to any of the
girls about what had happened [CDL, 1906, 4/24, p. 6c;
BLG, 1906, 4/27, p. 8g].
She said that, when she “got home,” she told her mother about
what had happened and on Monday “when another gentleman
(Dr. Kerr) came to the school with [Jones] she repeated her
statement to them” (KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7e). Under examination
[Dorothy] said she was taken into the doctor by Mrs Hall,
but she afterwards said that she went in alone. There was
another slight discrepancy in the child’s evidence. She averred
that she and Fanny Harrigan . . . had had a chat going
home, and she told her (Harrigan) what had happened,
but she afterwards said that she did not go home with Fanny
Harrigan [CDL, 1906, 4/24, p. 6c, italics added].
362 Philip Kuhn

Under cross-examination by Mr. Bodkin she made several

contradictory statements but was not to be shaken as to the
alleged offence [KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7e, italics added].
Cross examined: This was the seventh time she had told
her story, and she had always told it in the same way [LBN,
1906, 4/26, p. 6e].
Counsel, however, urged that there were several variations

[BLG, 1906, 4/27, p. 8g].
Dorothy “was in the witness box for upwards of two hours” (KM,
1906, 4/27, p. 7c). Then Fanny Harrigan was called (SEH, 1906,
4/27, p.3c) and “said she was [just] 12 years of age” (KM, 1906,
4/27, p. 7c). She “gave evidence of similar impropriety on the
part of the accused” (BLG, 1906, 4/27, p. 8g). “When asked by
Mr. Bodkin if she knew what was meant by the kissing of the
Bible she replied ‘To pray to God’” (KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7c).14
In reply to Mr. Bodkin, [Fanny] said that after the alleged

offence, she returned to her class and went on with her
lessons.
Mr. Bodkin: Why did you not tell Miss Brett, the teacher
of your class?—I don’t know [CDL 1906, 4/24, p. 6c].
Fanny “was under cross-examination for nearly an hour” (KM,

1906, 4/27, p. 7c). Then Mrs. Freeman was called 15 (SEH, 1906,
4/27, p. 3c) and told the court about “the statements made to
her by her daughter after she left school on March 2nd and
then again at the school three days later in the presence of
[Jones] and Dr. Kerr” (KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7a).
When Dr. Kerr had “deposed to the facts connected with the
enquiry held by him” (SEH, 1906, 4/27, p. 3c), Dr. Burney, the

14
This question was probably an attempt to subject Fanny “to a ‘competency
test’ . . . to determine [her] understanding of the truth” (Smith and Woodhead,
1999, p. 25). See also The Act, 1885, sec. 4.
15
There is some suggestion that Mrs. Overton and Mrs. Johnson might also
have given ev idence. Compare LBN (1906, 4/26, p. 6e), with LCC (1906b,
p. 227). There is, however, no record of Mrs. Harrigan‘s presence at the trial.

police surgeon, “gave evidence, as did Mrs. Hall, . . . as to

certain indications on a table cloth in the room used on the day
in question” (KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7c; SEH, 1906, 4/27, p. 3c;
BLG, 1906, 4/27, p. 8g). “Dr. Dudley Burney said he made an
analysis of the green baize table cloth. . . . There were three
or four stains on the cloth. In his opinion the stains were of such a
character that they should not have been there” (CDL, 1906, 4/24,
p. 6c, italics added). Mr. Edward Good, the school-keeper, then
told the court how “the table cover referred to was folded up
on Friday, placed on the table, and six lounge chairs put upon
it and there they remained until Monday morning” (KM, 1906,
4/27, p. 7a; SEH, 1906, 4/27, p. 3c). “[D]epositions were taken
by Mr. Nixon, chief clerk at Greenwich, with a view to a committal
for trial” (WK A 1906, 4/24, p. 5a, italics added).
The fourth and final adjourned hearing occurred on 1 May
back at Greenwich Police Court. It took “little more than half
an hour” (LBN, 1906, 5/3, p. 5c). Dr. Kerr, cross-examined by
Mr. Bodkin, said
he was under the impression that the girls had made up

the charge amongst themselves. They were mentally
defective, and children of that description were given to
romancing. One could not be sure about any accusations
made by them without definite evidence [KM, 1906, 5/4,
p. 7b, italics added].
When he went to the school to inquire into the complaints

made, he heard the statements of four children and came
to the conclusion that the story had been made up by the
girls. The girls Freeman and Harrigan were of a nervous
type. They were mentally defective, and so also were the
other two children. Children of this type often invented
stories with a wealth of detail. Accusations for which there
was no foundation were often made by mentally deficient
children [SEH, 1906, 5/4, p. 6b–c; EEM 1906, 5/1/, p. 3b].
It was notorious that per fectly innocent words were

frequently distorted into romantic stories [LBN, 1906, 5/
3, p. 5c].
364 Philip Kuhn

He had had some twelve years’ experience of mentally

defective children. The three girls had represented Dr. Jones
as having put the same question to them. His experience
led him to the opinion that mentally defective children were
not ignorant in such matters, some of them, in fact, were
precocious. The judgement he formed from the statements
of the four children was conveyed in the words he used to
Mrs Hall: “I am afraid the girls have made this up between
them; I should like to know where it originated. Some of

the words which Dr. Jones was represented to have asked
the children to have pronounced were amongst the test
words generally used. 16 All three girls were mentally
defective; Overton more markedly so than the others. Such
girls were apt, from a word or two such as had been said by
Dr. Jones, to invent a story woven around them.
Mr. Bodkin: Romancing with a wealth of detail is a thing
that is done by many people.
The Magistrate: Particularly females (laughter).
[Dr. Kerr continuing] Mentally defective children were
prone to a distorted view of things and to invent charges,
great care had to be taken before placing any reliance upon
what they said.
In reply to [the Magistrate] the witness said he was careful
to avoid putting leading questions to the girls when
conducting the inquiry, nor did he in any sense cross-
examine them. All he did was to ask the girls to tell him what
they had told Mrs. Hall [KMGD, 1906, 5/4/, p. 5f, italics
added].
It was his deliberate opinion at the time that there was no

truth in the girl’s statement. He came to that conclusion
before hearing anything of the table cloth. The table cloth was
an important point. The word baby might very readily and
properly be used by an officer examining such children.
. . . There was no truth in Harrigan’s statement as to his
examining the table cloth in her presence [EEM 1906, 5/
1/, p. 3b, italics added].

16
For a possible source of this list of words, see Jones (1908, pp, 152–153).

He had questioned the girl Fanny Harrigan, and he had

heard her story in the witness-box. She did not tell him any
details of what Dr. Jones was supposed to have done, although
she was in the same room where the offence was said to
have taken place. No reference was made to the green baize
cloth, which had been produced at the last hearing of the
case [CT, 1906, 5/5, p. 11d, italics added].
At this point Ladies were requested to withdraw, and Dr.

Karr [sic] gave evidence to account for the stains on the
table-cloth and carpet in the room where the acts of
indecency were said to have occurred [CDL, 1906, 5/1/,
p. 8d].
Mr. Bodkin then addressed a few remarks to the Magistrate,

whereupon
Mr. Baggallay said he would not trouble Mr. Bodkin. Dr.

Kerr was the first who enquired into this case, 17 and he came
to a very proper conclusion. A fortnight later a detective
who—Dr. Kerr would forgive him for saying so—was a bit
sharper than he, was able to extract a statement from one
of the girls, and that was tested. It was clear in a case like
this, one could not place the least reliance on the evidence
of the children. The cross-examination of the girls showed
that no court of justice could rely on their ev idence.
Following a reference to other matters, the learned
magistrate said he took the responsibility of saying that it
would not be fair or right that Dr. Jones should be put on
his trial in this case. He came to the conclusion that no
jury would convict him. At the same time he thought the County
Council were perfectly right in bringing the matter before a court
of justice. Hav ing heard the ev idence and the cross-
examination, and the points which Dr. Kerr had called
attention to medically he did [not] think a jury could
possibly conv ict Dr. Jones, who would be discharged
[KMGD, 1906, 5/4/, pp. 5f, italics added].

17
This is an interesting erasure of Mrs. Hall’s inquiry.
366 Philip Kuhn

WHEN A CHILD ALLEGES IMPROPRIETY:

READING THE COURT REPORTS
The case against Jones “aroused considerable attention” (CDL,

1906, 4/29, p. 3c) and widespread local “public interest” (EEM,
1906, 4/10, p. 2g) not only in South-East London, where the
trial occurred, but also in South Wales, where Jones was
considered an “ex-Gowerton man” (CDL, 1906, 4/11, p. 6a), an
“ex-Swansea Doctor” (EEM, 1906, 3/28, p. 3d) or a “Welsh

Doctor” (CT, 1906, 4/14, p. 7g). Despite such extensive
coverage—at least 11 local newspapers covered the case—the
reports of Jones’s trial still need to be read with circumspection.
Louise Jackson (2000) has remarked that in the 1890s “the
[National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children]
drew attention to the silence which must . . . of necessity,
surround [such events] because the details of cases were too
delicate to report” (p. 55). But there is a danger in reading such
silences, and their attendant “coded expressions,” as if they were
simply euphemisms for what the press declined to print. In
Jones’s trial the children’s evidence to the court, with one or
two minor exceptions, was never reported verbatim. This means
that the precise details of their allegations were effectively
occluded from the reports. These omissions are startling because
Dorothy and Fanny were in the witness box for some three hours
between them and gave “in detail an account of the alleged
offence[s]” against them (KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7c, italics added:
CDL, 1906, 4/24, p. 6c). These omissions suggest that the press,
concerned as they were with their readers’ sensibilities, were
also reporting unspoken assumptions.
One of those hegemonic medicolegal assumptions was that
children’s testimonies were always subordinate to those of adults
(Bergenheim, 1988, p. 155). Mr. Baggallay’s sweeping comments,
“Not the least reliance could be placed on the evidence of the
children” (LBN, 1906, 5/3, p. 5c) was its most dramatic
expression. The court may have encouraged the children to
speak freely, but their words, being suspect, were never reported
directly and their allegations, already summarily dismissed, were
always filtered through the language of others. The press
reported not what Dorothy or Fanny actually said but what Mrs.

Hall or Dr. Kerr recalled of what the children had told them
several weeks earlier.18 Reading the court reports, one needs to
account, therefore, for how the children’s persecuted speech
was concealed within the “crypt” (Abraham and Torok, 1971,
p. 159) of a carefully circumscribed adult discourse that
disrupted the children’s narratives by fracturing that “‘free
narrative’ form” often heard when a child is “struggling to
convey the substance and detail of their [alleged] abusive
experience” (Smith and Woodhead, 1999, p. 27).

Here, for example, is a key passage of a report of Mrs. Hall’s
28 March witness statement to the court in which she recounts
her interview with Dorothy Freeman from Friday afternoon 2
March:
[Dorothy] made a complaint, and [Mrs. Ha l l] said,

“Whatever do you mean, Dorothy? Come into the sitting
room with me.” The girl did so, and then repeated the
complaint stating that the doctor interfered with her
clothing, asked her an improper question, and subsequently
acted in a grossly indecent manner. The girl told [the]
witness that she said to the doctor if she complied with his
request her mother would beat her and put her to bed.
[Mrs. Hall] scolded her, and asked her why she did not
resist, when she replied that she tried to do so but [the]
defendant pulled her away [KMGD, 1906, 3/30, pp. 8f].
But the crypt of Dorothy’s narrative can still be found buried

in t he report of Mrs. Ha l l’s d iscourse, and it s jig-saw
reconstruction from other fragments scattered through the
reports allows for a restitutive narrative of Dorothy’s allegations.
Although the press declined to report what Dorothy meant
when she said that Jones “had acted in a grossly indecent
manner,” the point can be reclaimed from the opening statement
of Mr. Elliot (for the prosecution), who told the court that
Dorothy (and Fanny) had “alleged that the docto r . . .

18
A notable exception is CDL, 1906, 4/24, p. 6c, which is also carried in
CT, 1906, 4/28, p. 5g.
368 Philip Kuhn

indecently exposed himself” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e). The

next thread of Mrs. Hall’s statement is even more tangled
because the press also declined to report what she claimed
Dorothy had told her next. My contention is that Dorothy
continued her narrative by alleging that when Jones exposed
himself he “asked” Dorothy to touch his genitals. This silenced
detail explains Mrs. Hall’s next reported comment: that Dorothy
(then) told the doctor that “if she complied with [his] request
her mother would beat her and put her to bed.” The press
similarly omitted Dorothy’s next statement, which, I suggest,
was that, when she refused, Jones grabbed hold of her and forced
her to touch his genitals.19 This persecuted portion of Dorothy’s
narrative is effectively confirmed by Mrs. Hall’s subsequent
reaction: on hearing her reply, she “scolded [Dorothy] and asked
her why she did not resist” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8f). Dorothy’s
answer to Mrs. Hall’s admonition can be heard through a rare
verbatim fragment of her evidence to the court, on 23 April:
“She tried to get away but he would not let her go” (LBN, 1906,
4/26, p. 6e; KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7c: CDL, 1906, 4/24, p. 6c).
“After a time he allowed her to leave him” (BLG, 1906, 4/27,
p. 8g).
THE GREEN BAIZE TABLE COVER
Although Jones was charged on two counts of indecent assault,

all the court reports, without exception, glossed Fanny’s story
by subsuming her narrative under the guise of Dorothy’s. They
used such discursive sleights-of-hand as: “Fanny Harriga n . . .
made a similar complaint” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, pp. 8f) and
“Similar evidence was given by the other little girl” (LBN, 1906,
4/12, p. 6e). This occlusion reveals another aspect of the
prevailing medicolegal culture, which summarily lumped the
girls’ stories together simply because they “were repeated in
substantially the same words” (LBN, 1906, 3/29, p. 5g). Fanny’s

19
According to Carol Smart (1999), “The law on indecent assault . . .
criminalised the act of touching a child’s genitals but said nothing on the
situation in which a man obliged a child to touch his genitals” (p. 399). See
also Smart (2000, p. 64).

allegations may have been similar to Dorothy’s, but they were

also unique.
During his summing up, Mr. Baggallay noted, in passing, that
DS Beavis had elicited information from Fanny Harrigan that
neither Mrs. Hall nor Dr. Kerr had discovered when they
interviewed her several days earlier (KM, 1906, 5/4, p. 7b). He
was, of course, referring to Fanny’s statement concerning the
green baize table cloth. The L.C.C. minutes reveal that this
evidence triggered Jones’s arrest. This can also be understood

from the sharp exchange when Jones was arrested: “‘Why it
only rests on the statements of those two girls? . . . No the table-
cover has been examined and certain marks have been found
upon it’” (KMGD, 1906, 3/23, p. 5f, italics added). Given that
sections two and three of the 1885 Act prohibited courts from
accepting unsubstantiated evidence,20 the table cover was clearly
the key to Jones’s prosecution. And yet its narrative, like the
girls’ testimonies, is also persecuted from the court reports.
In the Tower Bridge Police Court on 23 April Dorothy
Freeman, Fanny Harrigan, Mrs. Freeman, the school-caretaker,
and the Police Surgeon all gave evidence against Jones. For some
inexplicable reason, the press reports for that crucial day’s
proceedings were considerably sparser than for the rest. They
either ignored the green baize table cover or else glossed over
its significance (KI 1906, 4/27/, p. 7f). Only The Kentish Mercury
and The Cambrian Daily Leader offered reports: “Dr. Dudley
Burney . . . also gave evidence . . . as to certain indications
on a table cover in the room used by the doctor on the day in
question” (KM, 1906, 4/27, p. 7c) and “There were three or
four stains on the cloth. In his opinion the stains were of such a
character that they should not have been there” (CDL, 1906, 4/
24, p. 6c). Notwithstanding these ellipses, it is still possible to
return the stor y of the table cover to Fanny Harrigan’s
(fragmented) narrative and thereby reconstruct her allegations
against Jones.

20
The sections state: “Provided that no person shall be conv icted . . . upon
the evidence of one witness [only], unless such witness be corroborated in
some material particular by evidence implicating the accused” (italics added).
370 Philip Kuhn

If Fanny Harrigan “made a similar complaint” to Dorothy

Freeman’s, it is now permissible to rearticulate part of Fanny’s
narrative in the form of Dorothy’s restitutive speech. Fanny
probably told Mrs. Hall that, when Jones examined her, he
interfered with her clothing, asked her an objectionable
question, and indecently exposed himself. She probably also
claimed that Jones then grabbed hold of her and forced her to
touch his genitals. For some reason, however, Fanny decided to
complete her narrative only when DS Beavis interviewed her

over a week later. It was at that point she told him that Jones
had then ejaculated. This is the missing portion of Fanny’s
persecuted speech and clearly explains why DS Beavis went to
the school and impounded the table cover. It also explains why,
when “the divisional surgeon” had subjected it “for analysis . . .
he discovered certain marks upon it which were regarded as of
great importance” (KMGD, 1906, 3/30, p. 8e, italics added)
and “of such a character that they should not have been there”
(CDL, 1906, 4/24, p. 6c).
In an age when “it was the practise for professionals to
disbelieve the child” (Butler-Sloss, 1991, p. 204) the table cover
offered important corroborative (and verif iable) ev idence.
Without it there would have been no prosecution and no trial.
Mr. Elliot, for the L.C.C., no doubt argued, through the evidence
of the school caretaker, Edward Good, that the table cover could
not have been touched by anybody else from the time Jones left
on “Friday night until Monday morning” (KM, 1906, 4/27, p.
7a). Dr. Burney’s evidence made clear that the stains on the
table cover in the teacher’s room were consistent with semen
stains. It even seems that the evidence was so compelling that
Mr. Bagg a l lay instr ucted his clerk, Mr. Nixon, to take
“depositions . . . with a view to a committal for trial” (WK A,
1906, 4/24, p. 5a, italics added).
But all this changed during the brief final adjourned hearing
when Mr. Bodkin, for Jones, attacked the prosecution case. He
probably f irst argued that the table cover could have been
contaminated prior to Jones’s arrival at the school on 2 March.
He then almost certainly made capital of the fact that the table
cover had not been impounded and examined until nearly two
weeks after the alleged incident. All this made it impossible to

link the semen stains to Jones. With the prosecution case

undermined, Dr. Kerr, cross-examined by Bodkin, then gave
“evidence . . . to account for the stains on the table-cloth and
carpet in the room where the acts of indecency were said to
have occurred” (CDL, 1906, 5/1/, p. 8d). Bodkin’s logic,
together with Dr. Kerr’s silenced hypothesis and overt medical
opinion, cast suf f icient doubt on Dr. Burney’s forensic
conclusions for Mr. Baggallay, the magistrate, to rule that the
whole case, once again, turned “on the evidence of the children”
and in that case “no [male] jury would convict” Jones (KMGD,
1906, 5/4/, p. 5f).
OEDIPUS REVISITED
In his autobiographical account, probably written in 1944, Jones

shifts the focus of blame elsewhere—to the children, who had
made false allegations; to the teacher, who “appeared to believe
them”; to Dr. Kerr, who “felt obliged, in the face of the teacher’s
attitude, to report it to the Education Committee”; to the
Education Committee, who “made the panicky decision of
placing the matter in the hands of the police” (Jones, 1959, p.
145, italics added). The record, however, reveals fatal f laws in
Jones’s account, including significant erasures in the testimonies
of key figures in the actions against him: DS Beavis, Mr. and
Mrs. Freeman, and Dorothy and Fanny. But Jones’s 1959 account
is only a prelude to what lies at its heart: “My view was that the
children had really been involved in some sexual scene and that
I was being made the scapegoat for their sense of guilt; I wanted
[my barrister] to direct his endeavours to discovering the origin of
the whole thing” (p. 146, italics added).
At f irst Jones’s comment s appear to echo Dr. Ker r’s
conclusions following his visit to the school on 5 March; “The
judgement he formed from the statements of the four children
was conveyed in words he used to Mrs Hall: “I am afraid the
girls have made this up between them; I should like to know how
it originated” (KMGD, 1906, 4/5, p. 5f, italics added). But there
are important disjunctures between Jones’s oedipal narrative
and Dr. Kerr’s 1906 (preoedipal) discourse. Having automatically
assumed that the children’s testimonies could not be grounded
372 Philip Kuhn

in reality, Dr. Kerr fell back on the prevailing medicolegal

discourse that automatically held such allegations “mendacious
depositions” arising from “a pathological process” (Motet, 1887,
p. 91; Fournier, 1880).21 This same discourse also underpinned
the decision of the court, as the following exchange reveals.
In his evidence, Dr. Kerr emphasised the mental incompetence
of the girls—“Both Freeman and Harrigan were of a nervous
type.” The Magistrate: “Are you sure they are both mentally
defective?” Mr. Bodkin answered: “Their family history proves

that” 22 (CDL, 1906, 5/1, p. 8d). And this was the discourse that
ultimately informed Mr. Baggallay’s decision: “Having heard
the evidence and the cross-examination, and the points which
Dr. Kerr had called attention to medically, he [Mr. Baggallay]
did [not] think a jury could possibly convict Jones” (KMGD,
1906, 5/5/ p. 5f, italics added).
POSTSCRIPT
There is no explicit record of the Edward-street incident in the

official published records of the L.C.C., but Dr. Kerr’s 1907
annual report does conceal an inevitable trace within its pages.
He noted that during the year in question, Jones had conducted
his speech study “in the schools in the North Kensington District”
and his examinations “dealt with [children] who were selected
by their teachers as having normal speech capacity” and who were
“generally somewhat above the average in mental capacity” (LCC,
1907a, p. 27, italics added). It seems that, following his acquittal,
Jones was removed not only from Edward-street but from District
6 and from any further involvement with “mentally defective”
children. It is impossible to draw firm conclusions from this,
but there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that
the publicity surrounding Jones’s trial persuaded the L.C.C. that
it might be prudent to remove Jones north of the River Thames.

21
A few months later Dr. Kerr might have sought to explain the incident as
another of those inexplicable but rare outbreaks of mass class hysteria (LCC,
1907a, p. 32).
22
Probably a reference not only to Dorothy’s younger brother, who was also
at the Edward-street MD unit, but also to the (probable) absence of any
Mr. Harrigan.

Although the local press declined to editorialize Jones’s trial,

one can still speculate that their reports tapped into strong local
socioeconomic and moral emotions. Having already secured
the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act—the legislation under
which Jones was prosecuted—“purity” and “feminist” movements
were now campaigning to criminalize incest (Mort, 1987,
pp. 130–135) and further extend the laws preventing cruelty to
children. That legislation against both issues was eventually
enacted, in 1908 (Act 1908a, b) suggests that Jones’s trial

occur red ag ainst a backdrop of a new mor a l climate.
Furthermore, shortly before Jones’s arrest, in March 1906, the
Liberal Party had swept into power on a radical program of
working-class reforms. In this period of heightened class
consciousness, the accused on trial for such a morally repugnant
crime was not any old doctor but “a Harley Street Doctor” (LBN,
1906, 3/22, p. 7f) with all the antibourgeois connotations of wealth,
privilege, and authority that address would have carried for the
predominantly radical working-class populations of Lewisham
and Deptford. Jones (1959), perhaps unwittingly, illustrated the
point by recalling how, on leaving the court and “filing through
the crowd [he] overheard a workman say to a companion: ‘He
can cut his bloody throat, he can’” (p. 146, italics added).
But none of these generalizations should detract from the
extraordinary personal actions of the various adults concerned:
from the reluctant and overwhelmed Mrs. Hall, to the sharp DS
Beavis (KMGD, 1906, 5/4, p. 5f) to Mr. and Mrs. Freeman, who,
remaining steadfast in their belief in the girls, “were not content
to let” Dr. Kerr and the L.C.C. ride rough-shod over what they
now believed (SEH, 1906, 3/30, p. 5b). But the Freemans’
tenacity becomes even more remarkable when set against the
fact that “central government, local councils, the police and the
courts” were always reluctant to prosecute under the 1885 Act
(Mort, 1987, p. 130; Rose, 1991, p. 234).
Fina l ly, a few words about t he chi ldren from March
1906.23 William Blowy, who was just short of 15 years old, entered
employment a year later. Walter Johnson, who was just over 10½,
was “promoted to Glen-school” some two-and-a-half years later,

23
Unless otherwise stated all information is taken from Edward (1920).
374 Philip Kuhn

a long with Dorothy’s younger brother George. Dorothy

Freeman, who was just over 13, entered employment some two
years later. Elizabeth Overton, not quite 14, was suddenly
whisked out of school on a special exemption when her mother
found her employment as a domestic servant in early June 1906
(LCC, 1906c, p. 335). And, by no means least, Fanny Harrigan,
who was not yet 12 at the time of her alleged abuse, was forced
to leave Edward-street in April 1910 because, unlike most of
her contemporaries for whom work had been found, she was
now considered too old for school.
REFERENCES
Abraham, K. (1907), The experiencing of sexual traumas as a form of

sexual activity. In: Selected Papers of Karl Abraham (trans. D. Bryan &
A. Strachey). London: Maresfield Library, 1979 pp. 47–63.
Abraham, N. & Torok, M. (1971), The typography of reality: Sketching a
metapsychology of secrets. In: The Shell and the Kernel, Vol. 1 (trans.
N. T. Rand). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994, pp. 157–161.
Act (1885), The Criminal Law Amendment Act (1885), 48 & 49 Vict.
1884–1885.
Act (1908a), The Punishment of Incest Act, 7 & 8 Edw 7, ch. 45.
Act (1908b), The Children Act, 8 Edw 7, ch. 67.
Bergenheim, A. (1988), Brottet, offret och förövaren: Om synenpa
incest och sexuella övergrepp mot barn 1850–1910. Lychnos: Arsbok
för Idé-och Lärdmoshistoria, pp. 121–159.
BLG (1906), The Borough of Lewisham Gazette.
Brome, V. (1982), Ernest Jones: Freud’s Alter Ego. London: Caliban Books.
Butler-Sloss, E. (1991), Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland
1987. Reprinted 1991. Corrections incorporated. London: HMSO 1988
CM412.
Campbell, B. & Jones, J. (1999), Stolen Voices: An Exposure of the
Campaign to Discredit Childhood Testimony. London: Women’s Press.
CDL (1906), The Cambria Daily Leader.
Clyde, J. J. (1992), The Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children
from Orkney in February 1991. Edinburgh, HMSO (Cmd 195).
CT (1906), The Cardiff Times and South Wales Weekly News.
Davies, T. G. (1979), Ernest Jones 1879–1958. Cardiff: University of
Wales Press.
 (1990), “Truth is a point of view”: An account of the life of
Ernest Jones. In: Lectures on the History of Psychiatry, ed. R. M. Murray
& T. H. Turner. Oxford: Gaskell, pp. 47–59.

de Man, P. (1989), Dialogue and dialogism. In: Rethinking Bakhtin:

Extensions and Challenges, ed. G. Morson & C. Emerson. Chicago:
Northwestern University Press, pp. 105–114.
Edward (1920), Edward-street MD, Admission and Departure Records [1894–
1920], EO/Div6/Edw.
EEM (1906), Evening Express and Evening Mail.
Ferenczi, S. (1932), Confusion of tongues between adults and children.
In: Final Contributions to the Problems and Methods of Psychoanalysis,
ed M. Balint (trans. E. Mosbacher). London: Maresfield Reprints,
1980, pp. 156–167.

Fournier, A. (1880), Simulation of sexual attacks on young children.
In: A Dark Science: Women, Sexuality and Psychiatry in the Nineteenth
Century, ed. J. M. Masson. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1986,
pp. 106–127.
Freud, S. (1896a), Heredity and the aetiology of the neuroses. Standard
Edition, 3:143–156. London: Hogarth Press, 1962.
 (1896b), Further remarks on the neuro-psychoses of defence.
Standard Edition, 3:162–185. London: Hogarth Press, 1962.
 (1896c), The aetiology of hysteria. Standard Edition, 3:191–221.
London: Hogarth Press, 1962.
 (1906), My views on the part played by sexuality in the aetiology of
the neuroses. Standard Edition, 7:271–279. London: Hogarth Press, 1953.
 (1910), A special type of choice of object made by men. Standard
 (1916-1917), Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. Standard
Edition, 15 & 16. London: Hogarth Press, 1963.
 (1918), From the history of an infantile neurosis. Standard
 (1925), An autobiographical study. Standard Edition, 20:7–74.
London: Hogarth Press, 1959.
Girard, C. (1972), Ernest Jones: Sa Vie—Son Oeuvre. Paris: Petite
Bibliothèque, Payot.
Greenland, C. (1961), Ernest Jones in Toronto 1908–1913: A fragment
of biography. Canadian Psychiat. Assn. J., 6:132–139.
Hacking, I. (1995), Rewriting the Soul: Multiple Personality and the Sciences
of Memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.
Hale, N. G. (1971), James Jackson Putnam and Psychoanalysis: Letters
between Putnam and Sigmund Freud, Ernest Jones, William James, Sándor
Ferenczi, and Morton Prince, 1877–1917. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Hunt, D. P. (1994), The Report of an Independent Inquiry into multiple
abuse of children in nursery classes, Commissioned by the City Council of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK: City Council.
376 Philip Kuhn

Jackson, L. A. (2000), Child Sexual Abuse in Victorian England. London:

Routledge.
Jacobitti, E. E. (2000), Preface. In: Composing Useful Pasts: History as
Contemporary Politics, ed. E. E. Jacobitti. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Jones, E. (1907a), Eight cases of hereditary spastic paraplegia. Rev.
Neurol. & Psychiat., 5:98–106.
 (1907b), The clinical signif icance of allochiria. Lancet,
2:830–832.
 (1907c), The precise diagnostic value of allochiria. Brain,

30:490–532.
 (1908), The variation of the articulatory capacity for different
consonanta l sounds in school children. Inter nat. Arch. für
Schulhygiene, 5:137–157.
 (1911), Some instances of the inf luences of dreams on waking
life. J. Abn. Psychol., 6:11–18.
 (1959), Free Associations: Memories of a Psycho-Analyst. London:
Hogarth Press.
Kerr, J. (1892), Notes on some hysterical cases. Lancet, 1:1180–1181.
Kerr, John (1993), A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud,
and Sabina Spielrein. New York: Knopf.
KI (1906), The Kentish Independent.
KM (1906), The Kentish Mercury.
KMGD (1906), The Kentish Mail and Greenwich and Deptford Observer.
Kuhn, P. (1997), Sigmund Freud’s discover y of the etiological
signif icance of childhood sexual traumas. J. Child Sexual Abuse,
6:107–122.
Lacey, N. (1998), Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social
Theory. Oxford: Hart.
LBN (1906), Lewisham Borough News.
LCC (1905-1906), LCC Education Committee, Special Schools Sub-
Committee, 3 November 1905–9 March 1906. Vol. 5, LCC/Min/3923.
 (1906a), London County Council Education Committee Minutes,
Vol. 1: Ref 22.06.
 (1906b), Minutes of the General Purposes Education Sub-Committee.
LCC/Min/3432.
 (1906c), LCC Education Committee, Special Schools Sub-Committe, 23
March 1906–5 October 1906, Vol. 6, LCC/Min/3924 (closed records).
 (1906d), Special Schools for Blind Deaf and Defective Children.
Report of the Education Committee of the Council submitting the Report
of the Executive Officer dealing with Schools for Blind Deaf Mentally

Defective and Physically Defective Children for the Year Ended 31 March
1906. LCC; C.114, Official Publications, Vol. 97.
 (1906e), Appendix 2. Report of the Medical Officer (Education)
for the year ended 31 March 1906. In: Report of the Public Health
Committee of the London County Council: Submitting the Report of the
Medical Officer of Health of the County for the Year 1905. London:
Southwood Smith.
 (1907a), Appendix 2. Report of the Medical Officer (Education)
for the year ended 31 March 1907. In: Report of the Public Health
Committee of the London County Council: Submitting the Report of the

Medical Officer of Health of the County for the year 1906. London:
Southwood Smith.
 (1907b), Special Schools for Blind Deaf and Defective Children.
Report of the Education Committee of the Council submitting the Report
of the Executive Officer Dealing with Schools for Blind Deaf Mentally
Defective and Physically Defective Children for the Year Ended 31 March
1907. LCC, C.189. Official Publications, Vol 108.
 (1908), Report of the medical officer (education) for the 21
months ended 31 December 1908, being appendix V to the
seventeenth annual report of the medical officer of health of the
administrative county of London. In: The Report of the Medical Officer
of Health for the Year 1908. LCC, MO Report.
Macmillan M. (1991), Freud Evaluated: The Completed Arc. Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1997.
Makari, G. J. (1998), The seductions of history: Sexual trauma in Freud’s
theory and historiography. Internat. J. Psycho-Anal., 79:857–869
Mort, F. (1987), Dangerous Sexualities: Medico-Moral Politics in England
since 1830. London: Routledge.
Motet, A. (1887), False testimony given by children before courts of
justice. In: A Dark Science: Women, Sexuality and Psychiatry in the
Nineteenth Century, ed. J. M. Masson. New York: Farrar, Straus &
Giroux. 1986, pp. 90–105.
NE (1903), North Eastern Hospital for Children House Committee, Minute
Book 13.
Nunberg, H. & Federn, E. (1962), Minutes of the Vienna Psychoanalytic
Society: Vol. 1, 1906–1908 (tr ans. M. Nunberg). New York:
International Universities Press.
Parkes, A. (1996), Modernism and the Theatre of Censorship. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Paskauskas, R. A. (1985), Ernest Jones: A critical study of his scientific
development 1896–1913. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Toronto
Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology.
378 Philip Kuhn

 ed. (1993), The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and

Ernest Jones, 1908–1939. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Potts, W. A. (1908), Certain types of feeble-minded children and their
significance. In: Reports of the Society for the Study of Disease in Children,
ed. G. Carpenter. London: J. & A. Churchill, pp. 460–467.
The Research Team. (1990), Child Sexual Abuse in Northern Ireland: A
Research Study of Incidence. Antrim: Greystone Books.
Roazen, P. (1975), Freud and His Followers. New York: Da Capo Press,
1992.
Rose, L. (1991), The Erosion of Childhood: Child Oppression in Britain

1860–1918. London: Routledge.
Scott, A. (1996), Real Events: Fantasy, Memor y and Psychoanalysis.
London: Virago Press.
SEH (1906), South Eastern Herald & Advertiser.
Smart, C. (1999), A history of ambivalence and conf lict in the discursive
construction of the “child victim” of sexual abuse. Social & Legal
Studies, 8:391–409.
 (2000), Reconsidering the recent history of child sexual abuse,
1910–1960. J. Social Policy, 29:55–71.
Smith, C. & Woodhead, K. (1999), Justice for children. In: Child Sexual
Abuse: Responding to the Experiences of Children, ed. N. Parton &
C. Wattam. New York: Wiley, pp. 19–36.
Stevenson, J. & Hague, L. (1930), Handbook of Child Law: Being the
fourth edition of “Handbook for School Attendance Officers.” London:
Pitman, 1952.
Strauss, L. (1952), Persecution and the Art of Writing. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1988.
WK A (1906), The West Kent Argus.
Waterhouse, R. (2000), Report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Abuse of
Children in Care in the Former County Council Area of Gwynedd and
Clwyd since 1974. London: The Stationery Office, HC 201.
Williams, E. T. & Palmer, H. (1971), Dictionary of National Biography
1951–1960. Oxford: Oxford Universty Press.
Furzeacres
Buckfastleigh
Devon TQ11 0JH
England
philip@lycaena.freeserve.co.uk

Jones's 1906 Trial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jones's 1906 Trial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Adams State University]

On: 04 December 2014, At: 10:47

Studies in Gender and Sexuality

“Romancing with a Wealth or Detail” Narratives or

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15240650309349207

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

“Romancing with a Wealth of Detail”

344 © 2002 The Analytic Press

Jones is an enigma to me. He is so incomprehensible that

I n his autobiography Ernest Jones (1879–1958) maintained

was once again accused of sexual impropriety: “talking . . .

151). His only option was to emigrate to Canada (Paskauskas,

Although historians of psychoanalysis have long known about

doubt that his theoretical correction encouraged several

sexual abuse cases: Cleveland (Butler-Sloss, 1991), Congleton,

Censorship, with its allusions to indecency and sexual depravity

(p. 32). Although Strauss was concerned with how philosophers

THE LIMITS OF THE PRESENT INQUIRY

The following reconstruction of the events surrounding Jones’s

trial is drawn from my readings of all the extant documents.

First a brief résumé of Jones’s (1959) own articulation of the

One morning, early in 1906, Dr. Kerr, the head of the

what he wanted, and should have been more perturbed had

Although Dr. Kerr

wished to dismiss the matter, he felt obliged, in the face of

GRAVE ALLEGATIONS BY DEPTFORD CHILDREN

On 11 July 1905 the L.C.C. Education Committee appointed

officers (Medical Inspectors) appointed [that] summer [who]

the head teachers were instructed to make lists of all the

Jones was assigned Division 6, covering parts of South-East

1906, the PD unit was substantially reduced (LCC, 1905–1906,

same day he started work, he was accompanied by Mrs. Burgwin,

the family history book, which gave particulars of the children

(LBN, 1906, 4/12, p. 6e) on each occasion to inform Jones that

about six or seven inches away from that occupied by the

t he complaint of t he boy Johnson.” T hat even ing “in

DR. KERR’S QUASI-INDEPENDENT INQUIRY

On Monday, 5 March 1906, Dr. Kerr, as “representative of the

that [Dr. Jones] asked her questions in sums and reading

made to these reproaches by Dr. Jones, but Dr. Kerr said,

pp. 844f). This anachronistic reading is important because it

Committee whereupon the members “resolved” that Mr.

It is well known that extraordinary allegations were made

Before these recommendations could be sanctioned, however,

CERTAIN MARKS HAVE BEEN FOUND

The chronology of events suggests an abortive meeting between

events overtook them, because on Tuesday morning, 20 March,

he had a warrant for his arrest. [Jones] said “You surprise

The following day, Wednesday, 21 March, Jones was brought

IN THE INTERESTS OF DR. JONES

The police decision to arrest Jones left the L.C.C. in a quandary

distinguished man against whom there was not the slightest

We have considered a report by the medical officer which

were referred to in the medical off icer’s report, were

The minutes were a formality. When Jones was arraigned

ROMANCING WITH A WEALTH OF DETAIL

Jones’s f irst adjourned hearing occurred on Wednesday, 28

The second adjourned hearing occurred on Tuesday, 10 April.

“was to and fro among the various children in the class-room

her evidence, the reading over of which occupied half an hour”

Under cross-examination by Mr. Bodkin she made several

Counsel, however, urged that there were several variations

In reply to Mr. Bodkin, [Fanny] said that after the alleged