OLD MAN WITH A CAMERA
- HOME
- CONTENTS
- PHOTO GALLERY
- COMMENTS /FEEDBACK
- Hong Kong Street Art
- Gravesend, An Indian Princess and Tilbury
- Alcatraz : The Rock
- A Russian Tank in London
- TESTING PAGE
- Hastings Pier
- Postman's Park
- Tolpuddle Martyrs
- Gallery Index
- Gallery Myanmar
- Gallery Ship Canal
- Gallery Zurich
- Gallery San Francisco 01
- Village of Eyam
- John Babbacombe Lee The Man They Couldn't Hang
- Gallery Flatiron Building
- Others Index
- RICE PUDDING AND RADIO
- Romania, Vampires and Whitby
- CITY OF BUCHAREST
- BUCHAREST PARKS
- PELES CASTLE
- BRAN CASTLE
- BRASOV
- WHITBY
- WANCHAI BUILDINGS
- History
- TESTPAGE
- Salem : Witches Beware !
- SALEM ANSWER
- Salem Slide Show
- A Random walk around Toronto Sept 2018
- Stonehenge
- TEST TEST 01
- Sydney : Random Notes
- Freemantle
- PORTMEIRION
- Sydney : Random Notes
- IMAGE FIND PAGE
- PERTH - FLOWER STEALING KANGAROOS AND MORE
- BATH
- KEW GARDENS IN AUTUMN
- PERTH - FLOWER STEALING KANGAROOS AND MORE
- ALCHEMY
- PARIS SIGHTS
- Hobart : explorers, flags, yachts and a zoo!
- Frestonia - A Very British Revolution
- Gallery Template
- SAIGON SIGHTS 01
- EDINBURGH STORIES
- FRESTONIA
- FRESTONIA
John LeE : the man they could not hang
I first became fascinated in the story of John Lee, following the release of the album by Fairport Convention, in 1971, which tells his story through several pieces of excellent electric folk music.
Here is part of the album on YouTube
John Lee's life was a succession of fateful events and decisions
It is a long story, with many confusions and contradictions but, without doubt, has it's focal point in the truly remarkable events of Monday 23rd February 1885
On that day, John Lee was to experience a mixture of chaos, disbelief and being brought back from the brink of death
The Events of John's "Execution"
On this cold and damp day, a man, John Lee, aged only 20 years, waited to meet his death at the hands of the state.
Found guilty of a particularly horrifying murder only 3 months earlier in the town of Babbacombe in Devon, England, his fate was to be hanged until dead, as was the normal punishment at this time in UK history.
Although "public" hangings had ceased around 30 years earlier, there was said to be a large crowd of people waiting outside Exeter Prison, the location of the planned execution.
What they were actually waiting to see was the raising of a black flag to show that the execution had been completed.
This should have happened at 8 am in the morning
They were destined to wait in vain and to disperse in disbelief.
Despite having consistently protested his innocence, John Lee had been fully resigned that these were the last moments of his life and he had no memorable last words to say. In fact, it was reported, he actually instructed the hangman simply to "drop away".
He was bound and hooded with the rope around his neck.
The hangman, James Berry pulled the lever and something quite unexpected happened. The trapdoor beneath John Lee moved only a couple of inches leaving the condemned man on tiptoe but very much still alive.
There seems to have been complete panic at this point with various attending prison officers encouraged to bang their feet on the trapdoor to make it open properly. these somewhat sadistic efforts failed.
The prisoner was taken to one side and the trapdoor mechanism "tested" and found to open fully without problem
The second attempt was even less of a success than the first. This time the hand drawn lever failed to move the trapdoor at all bending in the process.
The hanging party, including clergy, officials, the hangman and, of course, poor John Lee, must have been experiencing all kinds of emotions, none of which would be pleasant as this solemn occasion deteriorated into chaos. Some writers say that, at this point, Lee was almost eager to die and for the ordeal to be over but I don't think there is anyone who could know what was going through his mind. Later, some accounts talked of him having had a premonition, the night before, that the hanging would fail but this might have been a newspaper-selling addition to the history.
Carpenters were sent for to examine the apparatus and make appropriate adjustments. This was duly done with edges of the trapdoor trimmed to ensure that no "sticking" of wooden pieces was taking place. At this point (and for some time afterwards) the failures were being blamed on the previous evening's wet weather bending or warping the wood.
After this action and more testing, all seemed to be working well and the third attempt was made. By now, some of the onlookers were quite distressed and it is understood that the presiding chaplain and surgeon may not even have watched this final act.
But, unbelievably, the trapdoor failed to open again.
Not surprisingly, given the circumstances, accounts vary as to what happened next. Some have John Lee taken away and the execution abandoned at the insistence of chaplain or surgeon or both.
Minority accounts mentioned another final effort but this seems unlikely as several of the attendees were under the mistaken belief that the three failures automatically granted the prisoner a reprieve from death penalty. In fact, this well-held belief was wrong.
Nevertheless, in practical terms, political, social and even royal pressure (Queen Victoria even supported clemency in this case) meant that the Home Secretary (at that time, the most senior law officer in the country) Sir William Harcourt was very soon obliged to change John Lee's sentence from death to life imprisonment. From that day forth, John Lee became "The Man They Could Not Hang" and was also renamed by many as John "Babbacombe" Lee.
We now need to look back into John's life to see what led him to this astonishing day's events.
John Lee - The Early Years
John Lee was born on 15th August 1864, in the small English village of Abbotskerswell, near to Torquay, with a population of less than 500 persons.
I visited Abbotskerswell very recently and it is still very much a "village"
The Parish school attended by John Lee is still there and the house where he lived as a child also seems to be there...at least there is one with the same name and age within a short distance from the school
I believe that, today, his family would be described as "middle class" with steady income from clay mining and farming.
He had a sister, called Amelia and a half-sister, Elizabeth.
Elizabeth was later to pay a major part in John's arrest and conviction for murder.
At the age of 14, John was introduced to an elderly spinster called Emma Keyse who offered him employment at her home, The Glen, in Babbacombe, a seaside town around 7 miles from John's birthplace.
Ms Keyse was a very well-respected lady. She had some connections with Queen Victoria and the Royal Family although, contrary to some reports, she had never been a member of the Royal Household.
John's main task was to look after an old donkey and perform odd jobs around the house. By his own account, the work was easy and he was paid 3 shillings a week (worth about 120 pounds/week today), quite acceptable given his age, the light duties and the fact that food and accommodation were provided (even if it was only in a tiny room with fold-down bed)
John was happy enough but he had a burning ambition to join the British Navy for a life at sea. He had spent many hours watching the ships that visited Babbacombe Bay and longed for a sailor's life.
Within a year and after quite some arguments with his parents, he convinced his mother to sign his papers and he joined the Navy on 1st October 1879, at the age of 15.
In the beginning, it seemed that John's life was going in a very positive direction. After a year, he was even awarded a special book prize for "general progress". There is little doubt that, but for an unexpected turn of events, he could have expected a happy life without any hint of trouble or infamy. But, as we all know, it only takes one setback to change your personal history and fate.
In John's case, it was a particularly serious case of pneumonia which he survived but was then declared unfit for further duty in the Navy.
At the age of only 18, John had glimpsed a dream life and seen it cruelly snatched away in days. How this affected his further actions would be a matter of speculation but he undoubtedly became a quieter, more discontented person who felt that life had cheated him. He, himself, later, declared his youth as a "long series of troubles and misfortunes"
John Lee was born on 15th August 1864, in the small English village of Abbotskerswell, near to Torquay, with a population of less than 500 persons.
I visited Abbotskerswell very recently and it is still very much a "village"
The Parish school attended by John Lee is still there and the house where he lived as a child also seems to be there...at least there is one with the same name and age within a short distance from the school
I believe that, today, his family would be described as "middle class" with steady income from clay mining and farming.
He had a sister, called Amelia and a half-sister, Elizabeth.
Elizabeth was later to pay a major part in John's arrest and conviction for murder.
At the age of 14, John was introduced to an elderly spinster called Emma Keyse who offered him employment at her home, The Glen, in Babbacombe, a seaside town around 7 miles from John's birthplace.
Ms Keyse was a very well-respected lady. She had some connections with Queen Victoria and the Royal Family although, contrary to some reports, she had never been a member of the Royal Household.
John's main task was to look after an old donkey and perform odd jobs around the house. By his own account, the work was easy and he was paid 3 shillings a week (worth about 120 pounds/week today), quite acceptable given his age, the light duties and the fact that food and accommodation were provided (even if it was only in a tiny room with fold-down bed)
John was happy enough but he had a burning ambition to join the British Navy for a life at sea. He had spent many hours watching the ships that visited Babbacombe Bay and longed for a sailor's life.
Within a year and after quite some arguments with his parents, he convinced his mother to sign his papers and he joined the Navy on 1st October 1879, at the age of 15.
In the beginning, it seemed that John's life was going in a very positive direction. After a year, he was even awarded a special book prize for "general progress". There is little doubt that, but for an unexpected turn of events, he could have expected a happy life without any hint of trouble or infamy. But, as we all know, it only takes one setback to change your personal history and fate.
In John's case, it was a particularly serious case of pneumonia which he survived but was then declared unfit for further duty in the Navy.
At the age of only 18, John had glimpsed a dream life and seen it cruelly snatched away in days. How this affected his further actions would be a matter of speculation but he undoubtedly became a quieter, more discontented person who felt that life had cheated him. He, himself, later, declared his youth as a "long series of troubles and misfortunes"
Life after the Navy
John Lee must have felt completely lost after being discharged from the Navy and, as far as anyone can tell, he never had another truly contented day from then onwards.
Within only nine months of his leaving of the Navy, he had experienced three low level jobs; a shoe cleaner at a hotel, a railway porter and some other kind of menial work also at the nearby railway station.
The kindly Emma Keyse re-entered his life introducing John to a Colonel Brownlow, who needed a "footman" (a kind of general servant in a large household.)
This was a great opportunity with every possibility of an acceptable "career" in service with steady progression and job security.
But John Lee was to demonstrate a self-destructive side to his character when he foolishly gave in to temptation and stole several items of silver while the Colonel was away from home on holiday.
Such were the details of the robbery that he would have had almost no chance to avoid arrest and conviction so it remains a mystery why he was so foolish, knowing that such an event, in those Victorian days, could make someone virtually unemployable for life. He did claim he was trying to help a friend who needed money but this seems an doubtful reason given his generally withdrawn nature.
After serving 6 month's hard labour for the crime, John Lee could have very little expectation of employment, wages or acceptance into normal society.
When all hope seemed lost, the remarkable Emma Keyse again intervened offering him temporary employment as a gardener's assistant at The Glen. The wages were less than he had received before but he would have food and lodging together with the possibility of better employment in time if he could prove his character.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that Emma Keyse had not only given employment to John but, also, at various times, had done the same for both his sisters. In fact, when John rejoined the Keyse household, his half-sister Elizabeth was the cook.
Unfortunately, within a few months of this latest kindness, the relationship between Emma Keyse and John Lee had deteriorated.
John Lee must have felt completely lost after being discharged from the Navy and, as far as anyone can tell, he never had another truly contented day from then onwards.
Within only nine months of his leaving of the Navy, he had experienced three low level jobs; a shoe cleaner at a hotel, a railway porter and some other kind of menial work also at the nearby railway station.
The kindly Emma Keyse re-entered his life introducing John to a Colonel Brownlow, who needed a "footman" (a kind of general servant in a large household.)
This was a great opportunity with every possibility of an acceptable "career" in service with steady progression and job security.
But John Lee was to demonstrate a self-destructive side to his character when he foolishly gave in to temptation and stole several items of silver while the Colonel was away from home on holiday.
Such were the details of the robbery that he would have had almost no chance to avoid arrest and conviction so it remains a mystery why he was so foolish, knowing that such an event, in those Victorian days, could make someone virtually unemployable for life. He did claim he was trying to help a friend who needed money but this seems an doubtful reason given his generally withdrawn nature.
After serving 6 month's hard labour for the crime, John Lee could have very little expectation of employment, wages or acceptance into normal society.
When all hope seemed lost, the remarkable Emma Keyse again intervened offering him temporary employment as a gardener's assistant at The Glen. The wages were less than he had received before but he would have food and lodging together with the possibility of better employment in time if he could prove his character.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that Emma Keyse had not only given employment to John but, also, at various times, had done the same for both his sisters. In fact, when John rejoined the Keyse household, his half-sister Elizabeth was the cook.
Unfortunately, within a few months of this latest kindness, the relationship between Emma Keyse and John Lee had deteriorated.
The Path to Tragedy
I think a picture has already been painted of someone who now felt that life was always unfair and John was certainly ready to see whatever happened as being a kind of injustice, even when others tried to help him. I suppose that, today, we might say he was suffering from a form of paranoia which would explain a number of his characteristics.
He had hoped that his position at The Glen would become permanent and better paid. In fact, this had never been specifically promised, by Ms Keyse, and there was no sign of this happening as he continued to be given menial work. When his wages were cut by around 20% (possibly due to some "offence" although little detailed information exists on this point) this surely would have made him disappointed to the point of anger.
At this time, he was in a rather volatile engagement to a Katie Farmer who, by all accounts cared deeply for him, pleading for the relationship to continue when he tried to break it off due to his lack of general prospects.
As if all this was not enough, Miss Keyse announced a plan to sell her property. As you might expect, from her kindly nature, she was hopeful that any new owners would find places for her servants but, of course, this could not be guaranteed.
So, by the time of the fateful events of 14th November 1884, John Lee would be easily identified as an angry employee whose life was threatening to fall apart and whose relationship with Emma Keyse was extremely strained.
I think a picture has already been painted of someone who now felt that life was always unfair and John was certainly ready to see whatever happened as being a kind of injustice, even when others tried to help him. I suppose that, today, we might say he was suffering from a form of paranoia which would explain a number of his characteristics.
He had hoped that his position at The Glen would become permanent and better paid. In fact, this had never been specifically promised, by Ms Keyse, and there was no sign of this happening as he continued to be given menial work. When his wages were cut by around 20% (possibly due to some "offence" although little detailed information exists on this point) this surely would have made him disappointed to the point of anger.
At this time, he was in a rather volatile engagement to a Katie Farmer who, by all accounts cared deeply for him, pleading for the relationship to continue when he tried to break it off due to his lack of general prospects.
As if all this was not enough, Miss Keyse announced a plan to sell her property. As you might expect, from her kindly nature, she was hopeful that any new owners would find places for her servants but, of course, this could not be guaranteed.
So, by the time of the fateful events of 14th November 1884, John Lee would be easily identified as an angry employee whose life was threatening to fall apart and whose relationship with Emma Keyse was extremely strained.
The Murder of Miss Emma Keyse
What exactly happened, on 14th November 1884, depends on who you ask and who you choose to believe.
What is not in dispute is that there was a fire and a body.
It was generally accepted that Miss Emma Keyse had first been brutally murdered and then a fire had been started as an attempt to "cover" the crime
Let's start with a summary of John Lee's account which was only made available many years later in an autobiography.
He states that, after spending part of the evening with his fiancee, he came home around 10pm and after evening prayers and supper, he went to bed in the pantry which doubled as his bedroom and a storage area for food and other items. He maintains that he slept quickly and was not awakened even when one of the long-serving servants Jane Neck entered his room for some household items.
In fact, John claims he was only awakened at daybreak by people shouting that there was a fire in the house.
He continued by saying that 3 servants and himself rushed around the smoke-filled house looking for their employer before finding Miss Keyse murdered with her throat cut and with her body partially burned.
An important detail in John's account is that he claims to have cut his arm badly trying to open a window to let in some fresh air. Later this would become significant in the police examination of the crime. After all, if there is a murder and you have blood on your body or clothes, the police are likely to be interested !
Finally, John talked of running to tell various neighbours, especially those at the nearby Cary Arms Hotel, of what had happened and to get help to move Miss Keyse and put out the fire.
It is this final section of his story that seems, to me, one of the most strange parts of the sequence.
It seems that John Lee informed a local fisherman, a nearby Colonel and, even, a chimney sweep before attempting to contact the police.
Anyway, that was John's own account.
The recollection of other witnesses differed from John Lee's in a number of critical areas.
Mainly they all thought that John had been fully dressed when the alarm was raised meaning that his statement that he had been asleep in bed could not have been correct. Further, through various testimony, doubt was cast on the source of the blood on his sleeve with the timing and the circumstances of the window breaking suggesting that this was done after blood had been seen on his arm. The obvious implication being that he had some of Ms Keyse' blood on him even before she was discovered.
Doubts were also raised as to whether John Lee could really have remained asleep in the pantry while others had entered for various reasons.
Much of the contradictions only came out at the inquest so the almost immediate arrest of John Lee seems to have been based on the fact that he was the only male in the house at the time. (Note : At the later inquest, the Police Superintendent confirmed that this was indeed, the only reason the arrest was made.)
The Inquest
In fact, the inquest was really a full review of the witnesses and investigation resulting, for all practical purposes, in the first "conviction" of John Lee.
As the inquest took place only two days after the murder and John's arrest, you can see how fast things were moving with the police and other authorities believing that there was only one suspect and little need for further investigation.
If that wasn't enough here are some of the actual opening highly prejudicial remarks of the Coroner :
" The circumstances under which she was found dead are circumstances which suggest grave suspicions and it will be for you to carefully give your attention to the evidence brought before you as suspicion is directed to a man who is at present in the hands of the police...."
Then there followed around 15 witnesses, may of whom had very little of substance to say. For example, 4 coastguards were called to confirm that they helped to put out the fire and had differing views as to whether John Lee did or did not have blood on his arm.
Others seem to have "offered" testimony without any expertise or direct knowledge such as Miss Keyse' stepbrother who had rarely been in the house but pronounced that he could see no signs of forced entry. He also gave his opinion that John Lee must have heard any noises made by another person attacking Miss Keyse.
This "inquest" also gave the opportunity for some witnesses to make unsupported statements that John Lee had spoken threateningly about Miss Keyse after his cut in wages. According to John's half sister, Elizabeth Harris, he even mentioned the possibility of burning down the house. (not much family loyalty here !)
Without offering a lot more detail, I think we can just say that the inquest concluded with a verdict that John Lee had murdered Emma Keyse and so the trial was set up to be a formality, at least in the eyes of the police and most of the public.
It will not come as a surprise that most of the newspapers quite openly discussed the guilt of John Lee well ahead of the trial. With more "fake news" than even Donald Trump has complained about, the papers published outrageous statements with zero evidence such as the "fact" that John had been discovered hiding with money and jewellery, owned by Miss Keyse. Further that he had "confessed his guilt". Even newspapers in the States weighed into this story, some claiming John was having an affair with Miss Keyse and decided to end it in a permanent way.
In fact, the inquest was really a full review of the witnesses and investigation resulting, for all practical purposes, in the first "conviction" of John Lee.
As the inquest took place only two days after the murder and John's arrest, you can see how fast things were moving with the police and other authorities believing that there was only one suspect and little need for further investigation.
If that wasn't enough here are some of the actual opening highly prejudicial remarks of the Coroner :
" The circumstances under which she was found dead are circumstances which suggest grave suspicions and it will be for you to carefully give your attention to the evidence brought before you as suspicion is directed to a man who is at present in the hands of the police...."
Then there followed around 15 witnesses, may of whom had very little of substance to say. For example, 4 coastguards were called to confirm that they helped to put out the fire and had differing views as to whether John Lee did or did not have blood on his arm.
Others seem to have "offered" testimony without any expertise or direct knowledge such as Miss Keyse' stepbrother who had rarely been in the house but pronounced that he could see no signs of forced entry. He also gave his opinion that John Lee must have heard any noises made by another person attacking Miss Keyse.
This "inquest" also gave the opportunity for some witnesses to make unsupported statements that John Lee had spoken threateningly about Miss Keyse after his cut in wages. According to John's half sister, Elizabeth Harris, he even mentioned the possibility of burning down the house. (not much family loyalty here !)
Without offering a lot more detail, I think we can just say that the inquest concluded with a verdict that John Lee had murdered Emma Keyse and so the trial was set up to be a formality, at least in the eyes of the police and most of the public.
It will not come as a surprise that most of the newspapers quite openly discussed the guilt of John Lee well ahead of the trial. With more "fake news" than even Donald Trump has complained about, the papers published outrageous statements with zero evidence such as the "fact" that John had been discovered hiding with money and jewellery, owned by Miss Keyse. Further that he had "confessed his guilt". Even newspapers in the States weighed into this story, some claiming John was having an affair with Miss Keyse and decided to end it in a permanent way.
As befits a local well-respected lady with some royal connections, the funeral of Emma Keyse was a substantial event with hundreds of people lining the route to the church. It was reported that 30 carriages were required to bring the select mourners to attend the funeral service.
She was buried in the nearby Parish Church of St Marychurch
I spent a long wet afternoon trying to find her grave, having seen old pictures of the tombstone online. Unfortunately, many of the headstones at this church are very badly degraded and it is impossible to read the names.
After having no luck, I phoned the local priest who, surprisingly, had never heard of Emma Keyse. He informed me that, during the Second World War, the church was badly damaged and many gravestones destroyed. He thought this was the most likely reason I had been unsuccessful in my quest. As he had no more information and there were no proper records of grave locations, I was forced to give up and take a very pleasant afternoon tea in the town.
She was buried in the nearby Parish Church of St Marychurch
I spent a long wet afternoon trying to find her grave, having seen old pictures of the tombstone online. Unfortunately, many of the headstones at this church are very badly degraded and it is impossible to read the names.
After having no luck, I phoned the local priest who, surprisingly, had never heard of Emma Keyse. He informed me that, during the Second World War, the church was badly damaged and many gravestones destroyed. He thought this was the most likely reason I had been unsuccessful in my quest. As he had no more information and there were no proper records of grave locations, I was forced to give up and take a very pleasant afternoon tea in the town.
The Trial
Using 26 witnesses, the prosecution produced at least 13 pieces of "evidence" that John Lee was guilty of murdering Emma Keyse and trying to cover up the offence by setting fire to the house.
In fact, every piece of evidence was "circumstantial" and there was nothing linking Lee directly with the crime.
This might seem strange.
However, you have to note that towards the end of the 19th century, forensic analysis was in it's infancy.
For example, the blood on Lee's sleeve could not be proved to have come from Miss Keyse, or if it was his own blood as claimed.
Obviously, as you would expect, some parts of the circumstantial evidence were questionable. For example, statements that Lee had mentioned harming Ms Keyse could have been made by those with an interest to discredit him. Even the police seemed to regard this part of the evidence as "weak" accepting that people intending serious harm rarely "advertise" in advance.
Further, the "blood evidence" cannot be given too much credence without it's origin being clear especially as witnesses gave differing opinions as when or, even, if it was seen.
The fact that John Lee carried the body at one point also creates doubts concerning the reason some of his clothes smelt of oil which was quoted as having "proved" he had handled materials to start the fire.
The lack of forced entry certainly suggests what is often called "an inside job" but the possibility of a door or window being left opened was not discounted. One of the servants stated that this was quite possible.
Without doubt, in my mind, the most damning evidence concerns John Lee's claim to have slept through the night and to be aware of nothing happening until when the servants woke him up amidst an already strong fire.
Even though he claimed to be a heavy sleeper, there would have been heat and smoke and noise very close to the open door of his "bedroom".
It was also noted that his room was not "sealed" meaning that some parts of the upper wall were open to the corridor, increasing the disbelief that he would have been undisturbed by what was happening.
Also, if someone else had set the fire using what was believed to be the oil can used, they would had to squeeze past the sleeping man in a way which was very hard to imagine, the "gap" between bed and wall being only 2-3 ins.
Unsurprisingly, the case presented by the police was enough for the jury to convict John Lee after only 40 minutes of deliberations.
This led directly to the extraordinary failed execution which still lies at the centre of this story
Using 26 witnesses, the prosecution produced at least 13 pieces of "evidence" that John Lee was guilty of murdering Emma Keyse and trying to cover up the offence by setting fire to the house.
In fact, every piece of evidence was "circumstantial" and there was nothing linking Lee directly with the crime.
This might seem strange.
However, you have to note that towards the end of the 19th century, forensic analysis was in it's infancy.
For example, the blood on Lee's sleeve could not be proved to have come from Miss Keyse, or if it was his own blood as claimed.
Obviously, as you would expect, some parts of the circumstantial evidence were questionable. For example, statements that Lee had mentioned harming Ms Keyse could have been made by those with an interest to discredit him. Even the police seemed to regard this part of the evidence as "weak" accepting that people intending serious harm rarely "advertise" in advance.
Further, the "blood evidence" cannot be given too much credence without it's origin being clear especially as witnesses gave differing opinions as when or, even, if it was seen.
The fact that John Lee carried the body at one point also creates doubts concerning the reason some of his clothes smelt of oil which was quoted as having "proved" he had handled materials to start the fire.
The lack of forced entry certainly suggests what is often called "an inside job" but the possibility of a door or window being left opened was not discounted. One of the servants stated that this was quite possible.
Without doubt, in my mind, the most damning evidence concerns John Lee's claim to have slept through the night and to be aware of nothing happening until when the servants woke him up amidst an already strong fire.
Even though he claimed to be a heavy sleeper, there would have been heat and smoke and noise very close to the open door of his "bedroom".
It was also noted that his room was not "sealed" meaning that some parts of the upper wall were open to the corridor, increasing the disbelief that he would have been undisturbed by what was happening.
Also, if someone else had set the fire using what was believed to be the oil can used, they would had to squeeze past the sleeping man in a way which was very hard to imagine, the "gap" between bed and wall being only 2-3 ins.
Unsurprisingly, the case presented by the police was enough for the jury to convict John Lee after only 40 minutes of deliberations.
This led directly to the extraordinary failed execution which still lies at the centre of this story
Why Did The Hanging Fail ?
For many people, it was a divine intervention, by God, thus proving that John Lee had been innocent.
In his book, John Lee was reported as saying he did not believe in this idea favouring a more "mechanical" theory. However, that did not stop him from later taking money from religious organisations to speak about his "miraculous" salvation through God.
Initially, with regard to more human-based theories, an early conclusion was that the wood of the scaffold had been affected by the previous night's rain. However, this raises the question of why the corrections made after the second attempt did not solve the problem.
Further examination revealed that the gallows were flawed in a more complex way, whereby, depending on the exact position of the prisoner, certain components and bolt systems would become jammed and fail to open.
Given that the gallows had not be used for a long time and had also been moved from their original position, it really does seem most likely that simple mechanics and human carelessness was responsible especially as the hangman James Berry had other "mishaps" in his past.
So that is the logical but unexciting explanation
If you like more interesting theories, there were plenty.
Amongst them were :
a)
The "real" murderer arranged for the scaffold failure with or without the knowledge of John Lee, himself
b)
James Berry was bribed by Lee's sister (unclear where the money could have come from) to sabotage the hanging.
c)
Other prisoners, who had been involved in moving or re-building the scaffold, told Lee exactly where to stand so that the trapdoor would not open fully.
None of the above more exotic ideas were consistent with all of the evidence, John Lee's demeanor and the sequence of the events on the execution morning.
For many people, it was a divine intervention, by God, thus proving that John Lee had been innocent.
In his book, John Lee was reported as saying he did not believe in this idea favouring a more "mechanical" theory. However, that did not stop him from later taking money from religious organisations to speak about his "miraculous" salvation through God.
Initially, with regard to more human-based theories, an early conclusion was that the wood of the scaffold had been affected by the previous night's rain. However, this raises the question of why the corrections made after the second attempt did not solve the problem.
Further examination revealed that the gallows were flawed in a more complex way, whereby, depending on the exact position of the prisoner, certain components and bolt systems would become jammed and fail to open.
Given that the gallows had not be used for a long time and had also been moved from their original position, it really does seem most likely that simple mechanics and human carelessness was responsible especially as the hangman James Berry had other "mishaps" in his past.
So that is the logical but unexciting explanation
If you like more interesting theories, there were plenty.
Amongst them were :
a)
The "real" murderer arranged for the scaffold failure with or without the knowledge of John Lee, himself
b)
James Berry was bribed by Lee's sister (unclear where the money could have come from) to sabotage the hanging.
c)
Other prisoners, who had been involved in moving or re-building the scaffold, told Lee exactly where to stand so that the trapdoor would not open fully.
None of the above more exotic ideas were consistent with all of the evidence, John Lee's demeanor and the sequence of the events on the execution morning.
Was John Lee Guilty ?
There are plenty of reasons to feel sorry for John Lee and to recognise that he received little help from the legal system.
After the inquest, everyone assumed him to be guilty before the real trial began. Certainly, there was no way that an impartial jury could be in place
Although there were weaknesses in the case for the prosecution as evidenced by contradictory witness statements and false assumptions, John's defence team made little or no attempt to exploit these
At that time, defendants, with lawyers, were not allowed to speak for themselves and, therefore depended on their legal team to make their case and to challenge the evidence or opinion of the police. In John's case, his "team" did not perform as needed.
In fact, in the beginning, John Lee planned to conduct his own defence which, given his rather cynical and complaining nature would probably have been a complete disaster. Fortunately, even the press unsympathetic to him, wrote that this was ridiculous in such a high profile case.
A local solicitor, named Reginald Gwynne Templer stepped in to represent John. However, 2 days before the trial commenced Reginald Templer excused himself from the trial for reasons of ill-health and handed over his duties to his brother Charles Templer who, from reports, was not a very competent advocate.
So, in summary, John Lee faced a hostile public, a prejudiced jury, a police forced convinced that only he could be guilty and, finally, poor legal representation. So... no surprise at the verdict
However, because John Lee was unfairly tried, it doesn't mean he was innocent.
My understanding is that the normal defence to a circumstantial case is to show an alternative scenario which would would be possible within the context of the evidence presented.
As the defence did not do anything substantial in this direction, all the speculation about a different possible murderer only took place over the following years.
There were a number of less-likely candidates such as local smugglers, fishermen and neighbours with whom Miss Keyse had quarreled.
But, by far, the most persistent theory was that another man was present in the house possibly partying with John and the servants.
As Elizabeth was pregnant by an unknown man at this time, an obvious suspicion would be that this was the male guest.
Here, the story gets very interesting... In 1936, some 50 years after the trial, a very reputable journalist believed that, through an informant, the mystery of Ms Keyse' murder was solved.
Ironically and amazingly, the person implicated as the father of Elizabeth's child and the real killer was none other than John Lee's first solicitor, Reginald Gwynne Templar !!!
Sounds unlikely ..right ?... but Elizabeth had been working near to the home of Mr Templar and there were always rumours that the mystery father was a person of some standing in the community.
It's a provoking thought that this proposal could possibly be the true answer.
In fact, Mr Templar was not just "ill" when he withdrew just before the trial commenced but was gradually going insane and, in fact, he died later in 1886, in a sanatorium with the cause of death being entered as "a general paralysis of the insane"
Certainly the prospect of defending someone who was accused of a murder you, yourself had committed would probably drive anyone mad ...
And.... the involvement of someone from the "upper classes" would explain how John Lee's family were able to afford the high legal costs he incurred (equivalent it was said to 12 years of his salary)
At one time, it was said that Elizabeth had confessed, on her deathbed, some level of involvement in the murder but this story has never been validated.
After only having spent a relatively short time on this story when others have failed to reach a conclusion on John Lee's guilt or innocence, after many years research, I would not dare to claim any new insight.
The only thing I would say is that John Lee was probably somehow involved in the death of Miss Keyse but others may may also have been involved.
The main reason why I do not think John Lee could have been wholly innocent is because he made so little attempt to identify who else was possibly in the house although he must have known this.
It looked almost as though he was protecting someone and risking his own life in the process.
Was he or his family paid money ?
Was he promised that, by some means, there would not be a guilty verdict ?
Was he promised that the hanging would be sabotaged ?
Who knows..but it still seems very strange that he would go quietly all the way to the gallows if he was completely innocent whilst knowing the name of the guilty party.
There are plenty of reasons to feel sorry for John Lee and to recognise that he received little help from the legal system.
After the inquest, everyone assumed him to be guilty before the real trial began. Certainly, there was no way that an impartial jury could be in place
Although there were weaknesses in the case for the prosecution as evidenced by contradictory witness statements and false assumptions, John's defence team made little or no attempt to exploit these
At that time, defendants, with lawyers, were not allowed to speak for themselves and, therefore depended on their legal team to make their case and to challenge the evidence or opinion of the police. In John's case, his "team" did not perform as needed.
In fact, in the beginning, John Lee planned to conduct his own defence which, given his rather cynical and complaining nature would probably have been a complete disaster. Fortunately, even the press unsympathetic to him, wrote that this was ridiculous in such a high profile case.
A local solicitor, named Reginald Gwynne Templer stepped in to represent John. However, 2 days before the trial commenced Reginald Templer excused himself from the trial for reasons of ill-health and handed over his duties to his brother Charles Templer who, from reports, was not a very competent advocate.
So, in summary, John Lee faced a hostile public, a prejudiced jury, a police forced convinced that only he could be guilty and, finally, poor legal representation. So... no surprise at the verdict
However, because John Lee was unfairly tried, it doesn't mean he was innocent.
My understanding is that the normal defence to a circumstantial case is to show an alternative scenario which would would be possible within the context of the evidence presented.
As the defence did not do anything substantial in this direction, all the speculation about a different possible murderer only took place over the following years.
There were a number of less-likely candidates such as local smugglers, fishermen and neighbours with whom Miss Keyse had quarreled.
But, by far, the most persistent theory was that another man was present in the house possibly partying with John and the servants.
As Elizabeth was pregnant by an unknown man at this time, an obvious suspicion would be that this was the male guest.
Here, the story gets very interesting... In 1936, some 50 years after the trial, a very reputable journalist believed that, through an informant, the mystery of Ms Keyse' murder was solved.
Ironically and amazingly, the person implicated as the father of Elizabeth's child and the real killer was none other than John Lee's first solicitor, Reginald Gwynne Templar !!!
Sounds unlikely ..right ?... but Elizabeth had been working near to the home of Mr Templar and there were always rumours that the mystery father was a person of some standing in the community.
It's a provoking thought that this proposal could possibly be the true answer.
In fact, Mr Templar was not just "ill" when he withdrew just before the trial commenced but was gradually going insane and, in fact, he died later in 1886, in a sanatorium with the cause of death being entered as "a general paralysis of the insane"
Certainly the prospect of defending someone who was accused of a murder you, yourself had committed would probably drive anyone mad ...
And.... the involvement of someone from the "upper classes" would explain how John Lee's family were able to afford the high legal costs he incurred (equivalent it was said to 12 years of his salary)
At one time, it was said that Elizabeth had confessed, on her deathbed, some level of involvement in the murder but this story has never been validated.
After only having spent a relatively short time on this story when others have failed to reach a conclusion on John Lee's guilt or innocence, after many years research, I would not dare to claim any new insight.
The only thing I would say is that John Lee was probably somehow involved in the death of Miss Keyse but others may may also have been involved.
The main reason why I do not think John Lee could have been wholly innocent is because he made so little attempt to identify who else was possibly in the house although he must have known this.
It looked almost as though he was protecting someone and risking his own life in the process.
Was he or his family paid money ?
Was he promised that, by some means, there would not be a guilty verdict ?
Was he promised that the hanging would be sabotaged ?
Who knows..but it still seems very strange that he would go quietly all the way to the gallows if he was completely innocent whilst knowing the name of the guilty party.
The Later Years
In John Lee's autobiography, his release in December 1907 is so beautifully described that I would like to post it here
After his release from prison, John Lee seems to have adopted a rather contradictory lifestyle. For periods he tried to make money from his experiences. This had to be done with care as the terms of his release more or less banned him from directly earning money from his conviction. Still, it seems that the authorities lacked the energy to pursue this point seriously.
At the same time as he was encouraging some publicity, he also seemed to be seeking anonymity for himself and his mother. So, for periods his location was unknown and subject only to speculation.
So "The man they could not hang" became "The man they could not find"
There were sightings all over the world and the confusion was increased due to his name being a fairly common one and some tricksters claiming to be him for financial gain.
He was spotted all over England and in Australia. He was said to be gold-prospecting in Canada or even attending a movie of his life story in places as far apart as Sydney and Cardiff.
Apart from his brief time as a barman (see later) and then a probable move across the Atlantic, all other sightings are speculative and, in some cases, very unlikely.
The most widely accepted location of his final resting place is Forest Home Cemetery, Milwaukee, USA where, allegedly, his unmarked grave was discovered in 2009. I don't have all the details but I think year of his death is thought to be 1945, making him 80 years old.
In John Lee's autobiography, his release in December 1907 is so beautifully described that I would like to post it here
After his release from prison, John Lee seems to have adopted a rather contradictory lifestyle. For periods he tried to make money from his experiences. This had to be done with care as the terms of his release more or less banned him from directly earning money from his conviction. Still, it seems that the authorities lacked the energy to pursue this point seriously.
At the same time as he was encouraging some publicity, he also seemed to be seeking anonymity for himself and his mother. So, for periods his location was unknown and subject only to speculation.
So "The man they could not hang" became "The man they could not find"
There were sightings all over the world and the confusion was increased due to his name being a fairly common one and some tricksters claiming to be him for financial gain.
He was spotted all over England and in Australia. He was said to be gold-prospecting in Canada or even attending a movie of his life story in places as far apart as Sydney and Cardiff.
Apart from his brief time as a barman (see later) and then a probable move across the Atlantic, all other sightings are speculative and, in some cases, very unlikely.
The most widely accepted location of his final resting place is Forest Home Cemetery, Milwaukee, USA where, allegedly, his unmarked grave was discovered in 2009. I don't have all the details but I think year of his death is thought to be 1945, making him 80 years old.
The Old King's Head, London
Concerning John Lee's post prison life, one of the most reliable "sightings" was as a barman at the Old King's Head Pub in London.
By all accounts, he was there for a brief period in 1911.
It is said that he would show customer's his "rope marks" on his neck, for payment.
This was apparently his last employment before leaving the UK for America or, possibly, Canada
The Old King's Head, which I visited, is a truly excellent small traditional pub with nice stained glass windows, some old prints and a friendly atmosphere (not to forget a very good pint of Guinness). Irrespective of your interest in John Lee, it is well worth a visit. Not too easy to find so I enclose a Google Map screen shot and some pictures. (nearest underground station is London Bridge)
Concerning John Lee's post prison life, one of the most reliable "sightings" was as a barman at the Old King's Head Pub in London.
By all accounts, he was there for a brief period in 1911.
It is said that he would show customer's his "rope marks" on his neck, for payment.
This was apparently his last employment before leaving the UK for America or, possibly, Canada
The Old King's Head, which I visited, is a truly excellent small traditional pub with nice stained glass windows, some old prints and a friendly atmosphere (not to forget a very good pint of Guinness). Irrespective of your interest in John Lee, it is well worth a visit. Not too easy to find so I enclose a Google Map screen shot and some pictures. (nearest underground station is London Bridge)
Conclusions
The story of John Lee is fascinating because it is an "unfinished" story with many "gaps" and different interpretations of events. All we really know is that a young man, condemned to die, experienced emotions and mental effects which are impossible to imagine as three times, he thought he was drawing his last breath and survived.
The story of John Lee is fascinating because it is an "unfinished" story with many "gaps" and different interpretations of events. All we really know is that a young man, condemned to die, experienced emotions and mental effects which are impossible to imagine as three times, he thought he was drawing his last breath and survived.
Acknowledgements
The most important person to thank is MIke Holgate, a writer who has studied and described the story of John Lee in a very clear and complete way. Without access to his books, I could not possibly have produced this blog page.
I am also grateful to the British Library, through which I was able to get sight of a rare book written by John Lee himself.
By an amazing chance, whilst assembling background publications, I acquired a book written by someone called Frank Keyse, whom I can only assume is a relative especially since, in his own hand, the book contains a small tribute reading " Alas, poor Emma..."
If anyone has any information on how Frank was related to Emma Keyse, please let me know.
The most important person to thank is MIke Holgate, a writer who has studied and described the story of John Lee in a very clear and complete way. Without access to his books, I could not possibly have produced this blog page.
I am also grateful to the British Library, through which I was able to get sight of a rare book written by John Lee himself.
By an amazing chance, whilst assembling background publications, I acquired a book written by someone called Frank Keyse, whom I can only assume is a relative especially since, in his own hand, the book contains a small tribute reading " Alas, poor Emma..."
If anyone has any information on how Frank was related to Emma Keyse, please let me know.
Proudly powered by Weebly