by Bruce Orr
—The Autobiography of Jack Ketch, 1835
If death is the common destiny between marriage and hanging, then John and Lavinia Fisher are the perfect examples of that common destiny. John “Jack” Ketch was an English executioner used by King Charles II in the late 1600s. He had become famous because of the way he had performed his duties. He also became infamous for the same reason. Executions were supposed to be quick and merciful. During one beheading in 1683, Ketch had to make five strokes with his axe and then finally use a knife to remove the head of the person being executed. The condemned suffered greatly. Although Ketch made several apologies and stated that he had been interrupted while taking aim, it was rumored that Ketch had acted more sadistically than clumsily. Regardless of his fame or his infamy, his name lived on.
As one could easily surmise, the executioner was probably not a well-liked individual. His identity was concealed with a mask while he carried out his grisly tasks. It was the name, Jack Ketch, given and used to identify all executioners to protect their true identity. It was a name that Attorney John Blake White used repeatedly to identify the hangman in his essay.
As a form of execution five different types of methods were developed: suspension, the short drop, the standard drop, the long drop and a mechanized form of hanging known as the upright jerker. Each of these had their pluses and their setbacks.
Suspension hanging was exactly as it sounds. A person was tied to the rope, and the gallows allowed the condemned to be raised upward and suspended. This was a slow and agonizing death by strangulation.
The short drop was done by placing a fixed rope around the condemned’s neck and placing them on a cart, horse or even a stool and having that said item pulled out from underneath. Again this usually resulted in a death by strangulation.
The standard drop was used pretty much as the primary method during the nineteenth century. It involved a standard drop of between four and six feet. The gallows were equipped with a trap door, and as the door fell open, the condemned dropped the standard distance. This was usually sufficient to break the condemned’s neck and was a more “humane” and immediate death in most cases. Remember that this was a “standard.” The executioner did not account for variations in weight or height. The “standard” person may drop and have his neck immediately broken. A smaller person may drop and strangle to death. A heavy person of three hundred pounds or more may drop and be totally decapitated due to his own weight, inertia and gravity. Things often got messy with this form, but it was the most used. It is the type that was used on John Fisher, Lavinia Fisher and William Hayward.
The long drop and the upright jerker came much later. The long drop was developed as a method to improve upon the standard drop. In this form, a person’s individual height and weight were taken into account in order to determine how much fall would be sufficient to render a broken neck and not a decapitation. Unfortunately, this did not come about until 1872.
The upright jerker was a mechanized form of hanging used to make things a little more efficient than the others. A machine dropped a weight attached to one end of the rope while the other was tied around the condemned’s neck. Of course the machine did not take into account height and weight. If you were extremely tiny it sent you flying. If you were obese it just sent your head flying. If you were extremely obese it may just drag you slowly upward and allow you to remain hanging, suspended, until you strangled to death.
By the time the upright jerker was created and being used, it was more of an issue of quantity than quality in executions. It was used in the Old City Jail in Charleston and was a favorite—messy as it was.
Regardless of the method of hanging, prisoners were left dangling at the end of the rope for a minimum of one hour. This was the usual amount of time allotted to make sure the condemned was dead. If a message was being sent to the community, they were often left hanging longer so more people would have the opportunity to view them.
There were also several knots used, but the most used was the hangman’s knot or noose knot. It was considered the most efficient because the manner in which it was tied made the knot very large. The standard was to place the knot under the left ear and as the condemned reached the end of the drop the jerk against the large knot was sufficient to break the neck. If the hangman was sadistic or held a grudge, he could position the knot a little to the left or right and the neck would not break. The condemned would die a slow death of strangulation. This would be a good reason not to say anything that might anger your executioner. You may literally come to the end of your rope and find the knot in the wrong place.
In White’s recollection of the execution, it is quite obvious that the hangman had been quite the experienced executioner. By the amount of alcohol he craved, it was obvious the weight of those many executions did not rest well upon him. Regardless, this was obviously not his first execution.
White also noted that as John Fisher was making his proclamation of innocence and claims against those who condemned him, the hangman was on the ladder engaged in working with the ropes.
In the account of the execution in the Charleston Courier, it states in regard to Lavinia that “She died without a struggle or a groan.” Obviously the hangman showed mercy on Lavinia and the standard drop and hangman’s knot sufficiently broke her neck.
The noose traditionally has thirteen twists. If a person was “lucky,” he may get nine, one twist for each life, just like a cat. Courtesy of Kayla Orr.
The Charleston Courier account in regards to John Fisher’s death was not as “pleasant”: “it was some minutes before he expired and ceased to struggle.” For whatever the reason, John Fisher’s neck did not break. Some accounts say he struggled for up to seventeen minutes before dying. Obviously the hangman did not position the knot appropriately. Lavinia suffered a quick and immediate execution with the snap of her neck; John slowly suffered and died of strangulation at the end of a rope.
Maybe it was something in the words he said. Remember, in the end, he swore his innocence and accused others. “I swear, I am innocent. May the Redeemer of the World plead for those who have sworn away my life.”
Lavinia Fisher is said to have been the first woman executed in this country. Actually many women were executed in the Salem Witch trials. This is where the confusion of Lavinia having been a witch came from. There are no indications that she was.
Many have stated that the fact that she used oleander to poison her victims points to the fact she was Wiccan and therefore a witch since Wiccans use herbs and flowers in their “potions.” There are several problems with that theory. First of all, as we have found, there is no documentation that she used oleander as a poison on anyone. That is a complete fabrication. Second, practically everyone used herbs back then as remedies, making the entire country Wiccan in one form or another. Third, and most important, the Wiccan Code says to harm no one. The Wiccan Rede states, “These Eight words the Rede fulfill: An Ye Harm None, Do what ye Will.” That excludes anyone who would use oleander to murder another person. There is no proof Lavinia Fisher was Wiccan or a witch.
Lavinia Fisher is also said to have been the first woman hanged for murder within the United States. Actually, Margaret Hatch was hanged on June 24, 1633, for murdering her own child in Virginia. Mrs. Hatch tried to avoid her hanging by claiming pregnancy. A group of midwives was gathered together and a “Jury of Matrons” was organized. The defendant was determined not to be pregnant and subsequently hanged. Margaret Hatch’s execution precedes Lavinia Fisher by 187 years.
CHAPTER 9
The Allegations
COLONIAL JUSTICE VERSUS CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Now the fact that all three proclaimed their innocence all the way to the gallows and the fact that John Fisher blamed someone is an intriguing notion. The next two chapters will explore the possibility that the three were telling the truth. It will also explore what others may have had to gain by framing them.
We have already seen that there were problems i
n the trials and in the colonial justice system as a whole. Now let’s take an opportunity to look at a few more issues. Let’s start with physical identification.
Lavinia Fisher was said to be gorgeous. That is how she has lived on in legend. By the time she spent a year in jail and reached the gallows, she was described as woe worn and not a handsome woman. In David Ross’s statement, he identified Lavinia but also states there was a second woman involved in his assault, quite possibly Jane Howard, the other female arrested in Colonel Cleary’s raid. In John Peoples’s statement, he was attacked by “a tall, stout woman.” This was two hours after the Ross assault. Remember that he did not know any of his assailants. When Cleary arrived the following day, he arrested both Lavinia and Jane Howard. Could Jane Howard have been the tall, stout woman that assaulted John Peoples? Surely if Lavinia was as beautiful as was said then that would have been an identifier.
John Fisher was twenty-eight years of age. He was described as six feet tall, tall, slim, fair-skinned with dark hair and eyes. In one account, he was said to be knock-kneed.
In the 1800s, diseases such as rickets were common. We now know that left untreated this disease can cause the legs to turn inward to where the knees bend toward each other, and in severe cases, touch. In some cases being knock-kneed is hereditary. Braces can be used to correct these deformities, but they were not available then.
Knock-kneed adults are more susceptible to injury. Since they have lived with the problem most of their lives without treatment, they would have developed osteoarthritis. In severe cases, the person may have even had trouble walking. So our notorious, vicious murderer and butcher may have been handicapped. If this was indeed an identifying characteristic, wouldn’t Peoples have used it as a descriptor?
Without knowing the suspects by name, how did John Peoples identify them then? Well that actually ties in directly with whom John Fisher was accusing.
In the previous chapter, you read many accounts of the execution of the Fishers. There is record that John Fisher publicly blamed someone for the couple being wrongly accused. The Charleston Gazette gives record that prior to his execution, John Fisher protested his innocence and made that claim.
In his final letter, read moments before his execution, John Fisher states that in mere moments he will be standing before God. Even in that final judgment he will profess his innocence and indeed be found innocent before the throne of God. In his address he also gives reference to his accusers, “May the Redeemer of the World plead for those who have sworn away my life.”
Who was John Fisher accusing and what were the accusations? Those questions can be answered in a series of letters printed in the Charleston Courier on February 22, 1820.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE COURIER.
Sir,—A Bench Warrant, against a certain gang of highway robbers, who had infested the neighborhood of the Six-Mile House, having been put into my hands some time ago, by the Attorney General; and the Governor of the State having particularly requested me to attend to the execution of the same; I went, accompanied by a vast number of the citizens of Charleston and its precincts, to execute the unpleasant duty assigned under the authority aforesaid; and succeeded in taking, among others, the criminals who have lately suffered the penalty of the law. Fisher, one of the principal leaders of the gang, having declared under the gallows, as I understand, that “Colonel Cleary called him and the other prisoners in gaol [sic], by name, to Peoples, the countryman, and prosecutor, whom they had robbed and severely beaten, so as to enable him (Peoples) to identify the said Fisher, and others—and that his (Fisher’s) blood was on Colonel Cleary’s hands;”—in order to remove improper impressions, which some persons might be disposed to attach to the expressions of a dying culprit, I have, by advice of several friends, been induced to request you to give publicity to the following questions, put by me to the gentlemen whose names are subscribed to the answer subjoined, and whose respectability is well known to the people of this community.
I know not who was behind the curtain, and prompted or advised this calumny; but I do aver, that from no person have I ever received more general and repeated expressions of gratitude than from this unfortunate man, who continued to do so, even to the very moment that I gave up the office, but whose subsequent conduct proves that the fear of punishment does not always bring about the work of reformation.
I am, respectfully, Yours,
N.G. Cleary
It appears that the sheriff, Colonel Nathaniel Greene Cleary, is the person that John Fisher accused. Fisher accused Cleary of identifying them to Peoples by name so that Peoples could identify them as his assailants and robbers. John Peoples was from Georgia and would not have known any of these persons by name. It is kind of interesting that, if you recall back in Chapter 3, there was a handwritten list of names of the Six Mile Housemen in a completely different handwriting than the actual statement of Peoples. Apparently John Peoples was concealed behind a curtain and watched as each person was brought down before him to be identified. John Fisher claims that Sheriff Cleary verbally named him and the others Peoples identified. This is interesting because he did not know the names, but a list of names including the Fishers had been provided to him on his statement. This makes John Fisher’s claim extremely plausible.
In a second letter, Cleary addresses the issues of the accusations.
To Col. Gordon, Archibald Lord, N. Slawson, and others
Saturday Morning, Feb. 19,
GENTLEMEN,
As you were present with me and many others, when I took Mr. Peoples to the gaol [sic] for the purpose of identifying the prisoners taken up by me at the six mile house, I will thank you to answer the following questions:—
1. Did I, or not, direct the gaoler [sic] to bring down the prisoners, one at a time, and were they not so brought down?
2. Did I, or not, call the name of Fisher, or any other prisoner, after he or they were so brought down and before he or they were identified by Peoples?
3. Did not Peoples promptly and unhesitatingly identify Fisher?
4. Was there any the slightest act on my part which would, in your opinion, have led you to think that I had used any means or devised any plan by which Peoples could have led to identify Fisher?
5. Was there not most perfect circumspection used by me in bringing the prisoners down before Peoples, and what is your opinion of my conduct upon that occasion?
6. How many citizens or others, do you think were present at the time Peoples identified the said prisoners? I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
N.G. Cleary
The third letter in the series contains the responses to Cleary’s inquiries.
To Colonel N. G. Cleary,
Sunday, Feb. 20, 1820
Dear Sir,—We received your letter, and with pleasure answer the questions therein contained.
1st question. We answer—You did so direct, and they were accordingly brought down upon the lower floor.
2d. You did not call the name Fisher, or any other name.
3d. He did immediately identify Fisher and his wife, and Heyward and others.
4th. There was no act on your part which could justify even a suspicion upon the occasion. You remained down stairs; were extremely cautious in the manner in which the prisoners were brought before Peoples.
5th. There was the utmost possible circumspection used by you upon the occasion, and you conducted the matter with great caution and humanity. You never once called the name of fisher, or any other prisoner, but designated them by the general term of Prisoner.Your conduct upon the occasion was in our opinion perfectly humane, correct and honorable.
6th. About twenty or thirty persons were present on the occasion.
J.G. La Roche,
J. Smith Darrell,
Nath’l Slawson,
T.J. Horsey,
Sam’l. Wilson, Jun.
And’w. M’Dowall,
A.B. Lord,
W.E. Hill,
John Gordon,
Sam’l. K. Cowing
R.B. Lawton,
Subscribed and severally sworn before Samuel Richards, J.H. Mitchell, and several other Justices.
Why would anyone convicted to die, knowing it was inevitable, not admit to what they had done? There are many instances of death row inmates being convicted of a capital offense crime and admitting to others to clear their conscious prior to execution. Why wouldn’t John Fisher? Better yet, why wouldn’t Lavinia Fisher or William Heyward? All three went to the gallows proclaiming their innocence. What reasoning would anyone have to frame the Fishers and Heyward and execute them?
Back in the very beginning, you will recall that the initial raids on Five Mile House and Six Mile House were conducted by a lynch mob with no legal authority. These men were a group acting under the guise of the Lynch’s Law that held no true legal authority. In the articles it states that they acted on the authority of the owner’s of the properties. David Ross was placed into possession of the house by the owner according to the Charleston Courier article. This shows that there was a definite land dispute. The Fishers were said to have ran Six Mile House since 1814 so had apparently occupied this property for five years. Remember that one of the key retributions under Lynch’s Law was the seizure of property. The lynch mob seized Six Mile House and left Ross there.
The article stated that this lynch mob left Charleston in regard to a series of robberies upon defenseless travelers. It goes on to state that, “As they could not be identified, and thereby brought to punishment it was determined, by a number of citizens, to break them up.” If the robbers could not be identified, then how could this mob identify the inhabitants of both of these Inns as the robbers in question?
In 1791, twenty-eight years prior to the events of this book, the Bill of Rights was passed. Within the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment to the United Sates Constitution guarantees the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Now imagine if you will, William Heyward sitting at Five Mile House when a mob rides up and orders him to vacate his home. He and the other occupants refuse, and perhaps one of them is killed, which would account for the freshly buried male body the coroner discovered several days after the raid. The place is then set on fire. Seems like an unreasonable search and seizure.