Trial and Error

I have always been a fan of court room dramas; Perry Mason, Matlock, The Practice, Law & Order, etc., and found the accounts of the trials at the Old Bailey were an interesting read. All the cases contain "sensational elements" that involve "violence and sex" but each has an element of surprise.

In the first case, H -- J --, For a Rape, 1722, I was totally thrown for a loop when the victim, Mary Hicks stated she would "rather marry [her rapist] than hang him." What? Could this be right? I found this response very strange but then I considered Mary's possible take on the situation; she would now be known as Mary Hicks, rape victim and less than desirable as a marriage partner, she was a poor servant and marrying a Journeyman could be a step up, or behaps she was a person that believed it was better to forgive than to put someone to death. In any event, the statement at the end came as a total surprise.

In the Gabriel Lawrence, For Sodomy, April, 1726 case I was surprised to find in the foot note that the word sodomy did not appear in Johnson's dictionary. One would think it would be there as it was described in the article as a "detestable," and "unnatural Sin." It was also interesting to note that many people came forward to defend Gabriel Lawrence and described him in a favorable way but it was the evidence presented by someone who spent a lot of time hanging around "Mother Clap's House" that held the most weight. It is interesting to note that in the United States sodomy was illegal until 2003.

I had to chuckle after reading Mary Picart, Alias Gandon, For Bigamy, June, 1725 because instead of a case involving sex, it was a case that depended on the lack of sex. The report trying to represent a foreign accent was a hoot to read.

In the last case I was somewhat surprised when the verdict was reversed but at the same time I was wondering how the original verdict was made to start with. While reading the transcript of the trial I noted how often the witnesses had different things to say. When recalling what the victim had said before he died there were four versions: "I am a dead Man," "I am dead! I am dead," "I was stabbed barbarously before my Sword was drawn," and "I am a dead Man, and was stabbed cowardly." These different people were all there yet each one "heard" something different. How can a judge or a jury ever figure out which one is the right account?