The execution platform loomed atop 13 heavy, wooden steps. Elizabeth Lillian Woolcock – barely 25 and shivering in a flimsy, white government-issue gown – waited below.
Then came the order to climb the steps. Woolcock complied and, at exactly 8am on December 30, 1873, a masked executioner slipped a dense, black hood over her head, and a noose around her neck. Before she could finish a prayer, the floor beneath her suddenly snapped open.
Woolcock – sentenced to death for the wilful murder of her husband, Thomas – hung by the rope convulsing violently for several minutes until she finally died. As custom required, authorities left her dead body suspended for one hour. She was the only woman ever hanged in the Adelaide Gaol.
Debate has raged over Woolcock’s sentence for 131 years. For her conviction - which arose out of circumstantial evidence - did she deserve to hang?
From her very beginnings, Elizabeth Lillian Woolcock (née Oliver), lived a harsh life. She and her family fell victims to a flash-flood, which left them with nothing.
Another tragedy followed when her mother abandoned her as a four-year-old. Woolcock remained with her father.
At the age of seven, she witnessed the horrific death of a family friend, just months before she was brutally raped and beaten in her own bed. Her injuries were treated with massive doses of opiates, which left her drug-addicted until her death.
Then, at the age of nine, Woolcock’s father died suddenly, leaving her to fend for herself.
Elizabeth, as a 19-year-old, took on a job as a house-keeper to the recently widowed Thomas Woolcock and his young son. Malicious gossip about the live-in arrangement soon forced Thomas to propose marriage. Woolcock accepted.
She approached her marriage with optimism, but her outlook would soon change. Thomas revealed a domineering character and, after excessive drinking, often beat his young wife.
Her only comfort lay in the morphine-laced medicine to which she had been addicted for so many years. Woolcock took the medicine every night, before she lay down in the bed she shared with Thomas. Only under the influence of her medicine could she endure his touch.
She was determined to leave him but, before she could summon the courage, Thomas fell ill.
He one day came home early from his work in an ore mine and complained of severe stomach pain, a sore throat and salivation. Soon after, he began to vomit. So severe was his pain that Woolcock immediately called their doctor.
Over the next four weeks, Thomas would be treated by three doctors. The first, Dr Bull, administered a solution for Thomas’s throat and other medication containing a third of a grain of mercury.
In just a few days under Dr Bull’s treatment, Thomas became considerably worse.
So Woolcock called in Dr Dickie, who diagnosed Thomas as suffering from gastric fever. The doctor prescribed some Rhubarb tablets, which had virtually no effect.
Woolcock, fast losing hope, called upon Dr Herbert, who quickly diagnosed and treated Thomas’s condition. The patient improved rapidly.
Two weeks later, Thomas thanked Dr Herbert for his service, and explained that, owing to hard times, he could not afford any more consultations.
So Dr Dickie resumed care of Thomas over the ensuing weeks. But Thomas’s gastric and intestinal irritation persisted, despite his prescribed medication. Although not overwhelmed by pain, he could hold nothing in his stomach except small doses of the medication.
Thomas’s condition deteriorated, as did his body. Woolcock became desperate. She faced not only the premature death of her husband, but also severe withdrawal symptoms from her medicine, which had completely run out. She had tried urgently to secure more of the ingredients she needed, but a chemist refused to supply her.
Neighbours and friends, who had gathered around the dying Thomas, suggested Woolcock call Dr Bull again. Thomas, in his weakened state, objected vehemently, saying: “I certainly don’t want Dr Bull again, as it was his medicine that made me bad in the first place.” Then, resigned to his death, he added: “I fear he has killed me.”
At 3am on September 4, 1873, Thomas Woolcock was pronounced dead. Dr Dickie declared the cause of death to be pure exhaustion, and excessive and prolonged vomiting and purging.
Later that same morning, the doctor prepared to fill out a death certificate, which he had intended to endorse as “died from natural causes”.
But before he could put pen to paper, Thomas’s cousin, Mrs Snell, called. She asked the doctor if he thought it possible that her cousin’s illness was caused by something he had eaten – or been given to eat.
Mrs Snell went on to bring the doctor in on the latest town gossip. It was that Woolcock had many times tried to buy poison from Opie’s Chemist Shop. And she had, but the gossipmongers did not realize that that poison was morphia – the key ingredient for Woolcock’s own medication. Nonetheless, just about every one in town accused her of the murder of her husband.
Dr Dickie, to spare the young widow from the malicious rumours, requested an inquest into Thomas’s death, which he was sure gastric fever had caused. But his charitable gesture went horribly wrong. The Coroner’s jury found the cause of death to be mercury poisoning.
Woolcock was charged with her husband’s murder and committed for trial.
A jury found her guilty after a three-day trial and a 20-minute deliberation in December, 1873. The court sentenced her to death by hanging in the Adelaide Gaol.
Fast-forward 131 years to May 22, 2004. Elizabeth is given another chance at justice – a posthumous retrial.
Old Adelaide Gaol staff, volunteer actors and Flinders University law students arranged a mock trial, as part of Law Week, to see what verdict a jury might deliver today.
Held annually, Law Week aims to promote greater understanding of the law, and the legal profession and system.
To testify, in front of about 300 spectators, witnesses– including Drs Bull and Dickie – took the stand. These medicos, it was found, had possibly misdiagnosed the late Thomas Woolcock’s condition. And inconsistencies in the case became abundantly clear.
Woolcock was not permitted to testify.
After the re-enacted trial, the jurors were dismissed and 12 new members were picked out of the audience. The 10 men and two women were seated in the jury box, while the law students divided into two teams – one each for the defence and prosecution – and prepared for a debate.
The defence team highlighted obvious holes in the prosecution’s case. Most audience members were left horrified by the sentence. The defence team found that:
Thomas’s symptoms were consistent with tuberculosis, dysentery and typhoid (only typhoid was ruled out in the autopsy).
The mercury found in Thomas’s body could indeed have come from the medication prescribed by Dr Bull (himself a known drug addict who, after the trial, was committed to a psychiatric hospital where he committed suicide).
The jar in which Thomas’s organs were placed during the autopsy had been left unsealed for 24 hours before the examination.
It could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Thomas had even died from mercury poisoning, let alone that his wife had poisoned him.
The jury was left to consider the findings and, within no time, had reached its verdict. For the willful and premeditated murder of Thomas Woolcock, Elizabeth Woolcock was found not guilty.
No comments:
Post a Comment