Professional Documents
Culture Documents
15d. Irish American Murders: BLIND Justice 1872
15d. Irish American Murders: BLIND Justice 1872
!
15.) Addenda
!
BLIND JUSTICE
!
!
CONTENTS
C ava n t o w n a n d f o r ty f o u r f r o m
D u b l i n .’ ( S o m e fly-fishing
Ballyjamesduffians like to think that
forty four miles is not quite far enough
away from the hustle and bustle of the
Metropolis!)
Like all other Irish towns, Ballyjamesuff had its fill both of
religious wars and their aftermath, emigration. But such
experiences are not always negative. In the eighteenth century, for
example, John Wesley made his way to the town to preach a new
religion and built a Methodist church for those who were in the
mood for religious change.
During the decade between 1861 and 1870, the Irish Bench
handed down 40 capital sentences, and twenty of them resulted in
an execution. During the following decade -- that is, between 1871
and 1880 -- 31 capital sentences were handed down and 15 of
them resulted in an execution. So, while the 50% execution-rate
held firm for both decades, the annual average number of persons
hanged throughout the first decade was 2, while for the second
decade it fell to 1.5.
But worse was to come, because for the decade between 1881
and 1890 the figures doubled, that is, 66 capital sentences were
passed and 30 persons were executed. In other words the annual
average number of capital sentences and executions in the sixties
was respectively 4 in the sixties and carried 2 executions, then it
fell to 3 in the seventies and half were executed, and then in the
awful eighties it more than doubled to over 6 , accounting for 3
executions per year on average. In this context, therefore, 1872
was a mild year when it came to murder or execution. Moreover,
1872 was particularly mild in that it accounted for a mere 2
executions and zero commutations. Indeed, with the exceptions of
1868 and 1877, when there were no executions registered, 1872
was one of the mildest years for the thirty years between 1861 and
1890.
www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/mateship
If one can imagine two persons fighting with the explicit intent
of killing each other, one expects the scene to contain a compound
of clues describing the will to conquer in each combatant. One
expects the clues to exhibit some aesthetic mix of anger ,
repulsion, assault, defense and attack. The exigency as well as the
effort to immobilize and kill are sometimes inscribed on the
defeated corpse. Patrick Lynch’s corpse proved extraordinary – not
just in the multiplicity of assaults made, but rather because each
volley made was made anew, as if its predecessor had no effect or
geographic connection either with the volleys preceding or
following. In this sense the stab-wounds appeared to be
disconnected, and suggested -- peculiarly -- that they had been
inflicted at random. That so many of the wounds inflicted had been
fatal also suggested a most unusually passionate desire to destroy.
It prompted the notion, indeed, that the murderer was for some
time stabbing a dead or a dysfunctional body! Was the murderer
blinded by his passion, or was he simply blind? Or both?
The other pecular aspect about the murder was the fact that
everyone in Ballyjamesduff knew who did it, irrrespective of
whether they witnessed it or not. They even knew before it
happened that it might well occur. The real question was never who
killed ‘Yankee‘ Lynch or, indeed, why he was killed. Everyone knew
the answers to these questions. What they didn’t know was ‘How’.
How was Patrick Lynch killed? And it was this aspect rather than
any other that caught the public’s imagination.
How could Laurence Smith, a blind man, who could not get
about the town or the countryside without the aid of a stick and a
dog, manage to dole out such physical pain? How could he catch up
with ‘Yankee’ Lynch, a perfectly fit man, hold on to him on the main
road, and stab him 18 times, particularly when he couldn’t see
him? And when Lynch, to all intents and purposes, had the full use
of his senses!
Three Trials
But how, precisely, did the two men come into what the Judge
of trial called this "unwelcome contact" with each other? This was
the mysterious point upon which the jury had to decide, but could
not.
Ejectment
But having bought the land, Patrick Lynch was now set the
sticky problem of taking possession of it. The Smiths were too hurt
to surrender possession gracefully, and the whole county knew it. It
was at this point that Patrick Lynch began Ejectment proceedings.
Once again writs were issued and served on Laurence Smith and
his family on June 28, the hearing being due to commence at
Cavan Summer Assizes on or about July. The prisoner and his
brothers, John and Patrick, and the rest of the family felt compelled
to defend the ejectment action. It was while waiting for the
ejectment proceedings to be heard that Patrick Lynch was killed.
`It was I who was in contact with Lynch`, he said. `You have
no business to take them. Don’t take them from their families.`
‘ It was a curious thing that you knew this man’, pried the Sub
Inspector.
First Trial
And this was fatally evident from the outset. Even in his
address to the Jury, the Solicitor General conceded as much. He
conceded that there was a ‘ blank ‘ as to what precisely took place
between the accused and the deceased at the time of their first
meeting. One might possibly be justified in finding a verdict of
manslaughter, ‘if they could reconcile the evidence in that
direction…’ The Solicitor General further conceded that no one could
be found to testify to Laurence Smith meeting with Patrick Lynch --
a crucial stage of the prosecution, ‘concerning which the Crown
could offer no evidence’.
The question was not so much that the jury could not agree,
but rather why such a pathetic prosecution case was allowed to run
in the first place. If the State had no evidence against a citizen,
then it should not go on a ‘fishing trip’ in the hope of finding out
something or other by which they may then prosecute the
defendant. No wonder the first case collapsed. The State then had
the impertinence to have a second bite at the cherry.
Second Trial
"Mr. Baron Dowse was a self-made man, who, without social advantages,
forced his way by his own merit to the eminent position which he
occupied . . . He gave at all times free and vivid utterance to his
thoughts, without waiting to examine critically the terms in which he
should mould them. These were often quaint and graphic, with a dash of
wit and humour, which, if a little wanting in dignity, .. .gave emphasis
and force to an argument or comment."
Laurence Smith could have drawn worse Judges than the baron,
who circumvented the present difficulties without much ado. He
stated that in the exercise of his authority he would be obliged to
assign the prisoner Counsel, and he hoped Mr Irvine (his pevious
Counsel) would ‘undertake the task of seeing justice done the
prisoner’
The Attorney General, who prosecuted for the first time in the
case, presented the Jury with the same infirmities as were urged on
the jury in the first trial -- that is, if they, the jury, had a doubt in
the matter, and if they could reconcile the evidence in accordance
with that doubt, then they might be satisfied in bringing in a verdict
of Manslaughter rather than murder. But this tack had failed in the
first trial and now, for the second time, the jury repudiated any
finding of guilt on the part of Laurence Smith.
During the third trial the evidence, as one might have expected,
became a little more compelling. For one thing, the evidence was
much better rehearsed and , secondly, people began to realise not
only that murder -- however committed -- was not to be condoned
but that the state in having three prosecution-cases brought
against the defendant was desirous that they give their evidence
with a little more gusto.
" Lynch was stupid drunk. I saw the prisoner. He went off on the moment
when I shouted. Lynch was taken up and laid on a cart till he came to. I
washed blood off his temple, the prisoner had a stick. I saw him give
Lynch a blow about the head. His head was cut. The day Lynch was killed
I saw prisoner in my own house in the evening. I did not see him coming
in. He was sitting there when I came in. He asked how I was. Lynch was
coming up, and the prisoner. In own house. It was not long till Lynch
came up. When I saw Lynch coming up he had a new pipe with him. I
said `I’ll shut the door, here’s Yankee Lynch’.
The prisoner said: ‘ you need not... If he doesn’t meddle with me I’ll not
meddle with him’. Lynch then passed. I saw him, and I went out and
walked a bit of the way with him to convey him from the door. I came
back. The Prisoner was there.He left my house shortly after. It wasn’t
long. My daughter asked me to rest. He said he had to go home to
churn. I heard that he (Lynch) was killed in scarcely an hour after that. I
saw prisoner on the Tuesday evening before the deceased was killed. Mrs
Bradywas there. The Prisoner said: ‘Only for you Rose, the law would be
little trouble to the Yankee’ "
Bernard Sexton who also saw the two men struggle with each
other couldn’t see the knife in ’Larry’s hand’, nor anything else
either.! When reminded that in the second trial he had already
testified that he saw Laurence beat the Yankee with his fist, he had
to take time to reconsider his evidence.
‘... It is to be regretted that the following facts of the case, were not, as I
am informed communicated to your Excellency in the communication of
the 7th inst., and in the hope of affording such information connected
with this painful case as may yet enable your Excellency to see cause for
granting a reprieve.
The only circumstances that I can see in the case that render the
prisoner a proper object of mercy are his total or nearly total blindness,
and the possibility that the prisoner and the deceased may have come
into collision without premeditation on the part of the former. The
existence of ill-will on the part of the prisoner towards the deceased is
apparent. This ill-will may have led the prisoner to have quarreled with or
assaulted the deceased and in that quarrel the knife may have been used
without any original intention on the part of the prisoner to have
recourse to so deadly a weapon.
***
Index:
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballyjamesduff#Notable_Places_In_Ballyjamesduff
www.irelandoldnews.com/Other/1873/AUG.html
www.sierratel.com/colinf/genuki/cav/Castlerahan/Ballyjamesduff.html
www.archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/IRL-CAVAN/2006-03/1141608975
www.ulsterbiography.co.uk/biogsD.htm
www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/
memorable_dublin_houses/7.html
www.kennys.ie/Search_Results.aspx?profile=Books&keywords=Cavan+
%28irish+OR+ireland%29