1709: Christopher Slaughterford, “Vengeance, Vengeance!”

ExecutedToday.com ^ | July 9, 2020 | Headsman

[CheshireTheCat]

The aptly named Christopher Slaughterford hanged on this date in 1709 — condemned, quite possibly wrongfully, for murdering his fiancee Jane Young.

Slaughterford owned a maltings at Shalford in Surrey and was known to be paying court to Miss Young when the latter went missing on the evening of the 5th of October, 1703. She turned up weeks later, dead in a pond and it was clear from the state of the body that it had been no accidental fall.

The closest relations of the victim in such cases are natural first suspects, and it was no exception with Slaughterford. With his neighbors murmuring, he turned himself in and stood trial at the Kingston assizes, winning acquittal: there was no firm evidence against him.

But the good people of Shalford not being satisfied with this outcome subscribed a second, private prosecution against Slaughterford. Some witnesses swore they’d been seen together that evening; Slaughterford and his lodger said he’d been at home. Such information as survives does not license one to make a categorical assertion of Slaughterford’s innocence but even for the time it was no better than a weak circumstantial case.”Some of the depositions against him seem very striking; yet the testimony in his favour is equally clear. There appears nothing in the former part of his life to impeach his character; there is no proof of any animosity between him and the party murdered; and there is an apparent contradiction in part of the evidence against him,” laments the Newgate Calendar. “The charitable reader must, therefore, be inclined to think this man was innocent, and that he fell a sacrifice to the prejudices, laudable, perhaps, of his incensed neighbours.”....

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

We ALWAYS suppress the voice of good conscience whenever we choose self-plessing over God-pleasing. Regretting it afterward is little atonment.

I hope they shouted “Crucify HIM!”, as we all do.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

...a private prosecution admitted no intervention by other courts or crown once a conviction was secured.

Maybe it's time to institute something similar in this country. I can think of plenty of cases where the state's justice system has failed.

[Theophilus]

Christopher Slaughterford made a good account for himself in his final statement. I’m glad I got to read it.

[21twelve]

The early 1700’s in England was pretty tough on defendants. They were allowed to consult with a lawyer beforehand, but their lawyers were not allowed to be present during the trial. It was pretty much that they were presumed guilty unless they could prove their innocence.

It seems that his final statement was about as good as it gets for a defense. If he was innocent, a short statement from the defendant should be enough to convince the jury.

I was just reading a short article to refresh my memory.

“You are expected to make your own defense, the idea being that ‘it requires no manner of Skill to make a plain and honest Defence’; if you’re truly not guilty, your countenance will radiate innocence.”

The article also said most trials lasted about 30 minutes.’
.
.
.
That included the jury deliberations!