Analysis: six 20th century Irish murder cases provide counter-intuitive examples of how criminal juries view women charged with murder
Women who kill shatter society's ideas of what it is to be a woman. When such women appear before the criminal courts, they are often judged by the standards of aspirational womanhood. How they measure up plays a role in how they are perceived by the public and may influence the punishment they receive.
The female poisoner has been particularly reviled. Poison was historically considered the archetypal ‘woman’s weapon’ as it required no special strength, only access and opportunity, things generally afforded women in their domestic role. Ian Burney has written on the ‘poisoning mania’ gripping the English public in the mid-19th century which focused on the ‘hidden devil’ in the home. Writing about 20th century female poisoning cases in England, Anette Ballinger, a lecturer in criminology at Keele University, found that women convicted for these murders received no mercy.
'All six women walked free'
In light of this, there are a handful of post-independence Irish cases which throw up some counter-intuitive examples. From the 1920s to the 1940s, six women found themselves in Dublin’s Central Criminal Court on trial for the murder of their husbands by poisoning. All six women walked free. Was the evidence unconvincing, or was there something more at play? Investigation of the records held by the National Archives of Ireland and from contemporary newspaper reporting can shed some light.
The first of the cases was Elizabeth Reilly, who was tried in 1926 for the murder of her husband Edward. The evidence revealed a troubled and violent marriage while Edward emerged as a volatile individual. Elizabeth was also having an affair with a local man, something she justified in light of her husband’s behaviour.
Despite an obvious motive, Elizabeth was acquitted. No strychnine had been found in the house and there was no evidence Elizabeth had purchased any. It was also suggested that the victim was so unstable he had taken the poison himself.
One witness testified that Kate had confessed to slipping poison into her husband's stout, but the defence focused on his weak heart as the cause of death
In 1931, Bridget Walsh was tried for the murder of her husband Michael. Poison was found in the victim’s glass and in Bridget’s coat pocket. The chemist also confirmed that Bridget had purchased strychnine the day before Michael’s death. Michael had deserted his wife seven years earlier, abandoning Bridget without a clue as to his whereabouts, and he had been home just a few months when he died. Although there was ample circumstantial evidence, the jury found Bridget not guilty.
Kate Shanley’s husband James died in May 1932. No suspicions were raised at first, but strychnine was found when the body was later exhumed. One witness testified that Kate had confessed to slipping poison into her husband’s stout, but the defence focused on his weak heart as the cause of death. After 30 minutes, the Irish Press reported that her acquittal was ‘received with an outburst of applause’ in court.
Not long after Shanley’s acquittal, Anne Hanley was also acquitted of her husband’s murder. She had married Phelim Hanley in February 1933, but he was dead by July. The state argued that Anne was an independent woman, lately returned from America, who quickly regretted her marriage. A succession of witnesses also told of domestic disharmony. After considering the evidence at her 1934 trial, the jury returned a not guilty verdict. Seemingly unimpressed at this decision, the judge, Henry Hanna, responded ‘very well. Discharge the prisoner.’
READ: A short history of deadly potions and poisons
That same year, Elizabeth Conway was found not guilty of the murder of her husband Martin. There was again suspicion that Elizabeth had been having an affair. While there was no evidence Elizabeth had purchased strychnine, it appears her purposed lover had. The jury found her not guilty after an hour's deliberations.
The final case was that of Sarah Madigan, who was tried in 1942 for the murder of her husband Patrick. Again, infidelity was alleged, and there was evidence that the victim had been violent. Sarah had also recently purchased strychnine.
But despite these facts, there was disagreement between the state pathologist and another expert as to cause of death. There was also clear sympathy for Sarah, evident in Mr Justice Gavan Duffy’s comment to the jury that ‘It would be terrible if an innocent woman was convicted’. Unsurprisingly, in light of this, the jury acquitted.
A Freeman's Journal joke from 1847 quipped that 'toxicology supplies the deficiency of the legislation" in light of the obstacles to obtaining a divorce in Ireland
What explains these acquittals? Some can be chalked up to unconvincing evidence. As admitted by the state in Elizabeth Conway's case, it is a tricky task to convince a jury of deliberate poisoning. But some of the cases presented a compelling argument for conviction. From his research on 19th century English cases, George Robb found that the prosecution stood its best chance to secure conviction if it could prove poison as the cause of death, that the defendant had recently purchased the poison, had the opportunity to administer it and had a motive.
In many of the cases above, these elements were present, yet we can also read the verdicts as humane responses to the women’s difficult lives. The compassion shown in these cases may have reflected the harsh realities of marriage for many Irish women at the time. There were few options for women who found themselves trapped in a dangerous union.
Diane Urquhart, Queen's University Belfast historian, references a Freeman’s Journal joke from 1847 that 'toxicology supplies the deficiency of the legislation" in light of the obstacles to obtaining a divorce in Ireland. One hundred years later, with divorce a practical impossibility for most, this thinking may have lingered and may have informed juries as they attempted to negotiate verdicts in desperate cases.
Dr Lynsey Black's Gender and Punishment in Ireland is published by Manchester University Press
Follow the RTÉ Brainstorm WhatsApp channel for more stories and updates
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
