January 1804. Hammersmith, London. A group of young men had begun patrolling the streets, in search of a ghost that had been terrorising the local population for the past five weeks; a locksmith had already died of fright after seeing the ghost and two more witnesses were reportedly at death's door. In one newspaper report, it was alleged that an elderly woman had been so terrified by the sight that it brought on "a dejection of mind" from which she did not recover. A brewers' servant named Thomas Groom later testified that
"I was going through the church yard between eight and nine o'clock, with my jacket under my arm, and my hands in my pocket, when some person came from behind a tomb-stone, which there are four square in the yard, behind me, and caught me fast by the throat with both hands, and held me fast; my fellow-servant, who was going on before, hearing me scuffling, asked what was the matter; then, whatever it was, gave me a twist round, and I saw nothing"
Carlisle Journal, 14th January 1804
On the evening of the 3rd January, a twenty-nine-year-old Excise Officer named Francis Smith spent the evening at the pub and afterwards spotted a figure all in white proceeding down Black Lion Lane.
"Damn you!" he cried, "Who are you and what are you? Damn you, I will shoot you!"
When the figure ignored Smith's demand that it identify itself, Smith fired a gun. The figure collapsed in a heap.
Smith approached the figure and, to his horror, found that he not in fact shot a ghost, but rather a local bricklayer, Thomas Millward. A bricklayer's clothing was generally completely white, described later by a witness as "linen twowsers entirely white, washed very clean, a waistcoat of flannel, apparently new, very white, and an apron, which he wore round him; his twowsers came down almost to the edge of his shoes".
For Francis Smith, who now stood in a pitch black street with a gun in his hand, the situation was less than ideal. It was even less ideal for Thomas Millward, who now lay dead with a gunshot wound to the lower part of the left side of his jaw. Moments earlier, Millward had left the home of his parents and sister, Ann, and the latter both heard the gunshot and saw the flash of light from it. She rushed to the door and cried out her brother's name three or four times but was greeted only with silence. Ann went to her mother and father who lay in bed and tried desperately to rouse them.
"Do get up, for my brother is shot!"
Nobody in the house believed her and so Ann ran from the house and found her brother lying in the lane. "I took hold of his right hand," she told the court later, "and said, speak to me, but he could not, for he was quite dead."
For his part, Smith was horrified at what he had done, so much so that he reportedly could barely speak. He was described by his neighbours as a mild man and nobody had a bad word to say about him. He gave himself up to the authorities and a trial was held at the Old Bailey on 11th January 1804. When Ann Millward gave her impassioned evidence, even she admitted to having heard of the Hammersmith Ghost. "I heard great talk of it," she said, "that sometimes it appeared in a white sheet, and sometimes in a calf-skin dress, with horns on its head, and glass eyes."
Smith himself also testified,
"My Lord, I went out with a good intention, and when this unhappy affair took place, I did not know what I did; speaking to the deceased twice, and he not answering, I was so much agitated, I did not know what I did; I solemnly declare my innocence, and that I had no intention to take away the life of the unfortunate deceased, or any other man whatever."
After retiring for forty-five minutes, the Jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
But the Judge was having none of it. The Jury were required to find the defendant either guilty or not guilty, they could not simply reduce the charge. If they believed that he had committed the crime then it was not for them to extend compassion. Rather, "the prerogative of shewing mercy lay in the Crown".
Frances Smith was thence found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, though this was commuted the following day. Before the case had even reached the court, the real identity of the Hammersmith Ghost had been uncovered, as explained by the Morning Post article below.
The Morning Post, 10th January 1804
There are two interlinked questions which arise from this case. The first is whether or not Francis Smith (and the rest of his community) truly believed that Hammersmith was being haunted by a ghost. 1804 may seem rather late for such beliefs, but fear is contagious and moral panics continue even into the present day, as we saw with the NSPCC and allegations of ritual satanic abuse. Angela Bourke's fascinating book, The Burning of Bridget Cleary, describes an 1895 case of supposed fairy abduction and the murder that followed. There are no doubt many other examples of superstition and group paranoia.
The second question is whether mistaken belief is really a fair defence in a criminal trial. Of course, mistake could mean that there is no mens rea, but this would presumably not quite work in Smith's case, as he fired his gun at the ghost, intending, one would imagine, to kill it. Thus my next question is whether it is a crime to kill a ghost? If somebody is already dead, regardless of the alarming animation they might be demonstrating, one presumably cannot kill that somebody.
Luckily for me, this question has been posed by others, including in this weird case from Australia in 2017 and another from the United States in the '70s. The short answer, it seems, is no, it is not possible to murder somebody who is already dead. But then neither of these cases relate to ghosts, so that's not much help, is it?
Next week we look at another dodgy defence - necessity. Two men arrive back in England with a burning question; is it okay to eat a cabin boy if you're very hungry?
Comments
Post a Comment