122
he loved best
H. J. LETHBRIDGE
'Yes, there is no doubt he did it, but at the time he did it he was insane',12
That Marshall Hall was baffled by Lock's behaviour is evident. He developed a subsidiary defence that his client had run amok (a line of defence that quickly fizzled out when Lock's son said, in cross-examination, that he had never seen a Chinese behaving in that way). It was also clear that Marshall Hall, like many of his countrymen in 1925, had no firm grasp or understanding of the sociology or anthropology of Chinese society. To run ‘amok' or 'amuck' is a Malay phenomenon; the Chinese have never been accused of this type of behaviour. The Malay word refers to a person who unexpectedly and frenziedly attacks with a kris anyone found in his track, and is only stopped when cut down or otherwise overcome.13 Rather lamely, the eminent K.C. concluded: 'I do not think we can get into the mind of an Oriental'. It was plain that Marshall Hall could not do so.
The counsel for the prosecution, Sir Ellis Griffith,1 said in reply to Marshall Hall's impassioned oratory, "The upraised hand and uplifted voice is not for the prosecution'. The jury was out for only twelve minutes before they returned a verdict of 'Guilty'. Mr. Justice MacKinnon was greatly distressed when he came to pass sentence, for this was his first murder trial.1 "You have been convicted by your adopted countrymen of this crime', the Judge said. He exhorted Lock to meet death with the bravery that a man should'. Since Lock had sat impassively
15
poker-faced throughout his trial at the Chester Assizes in 1926 and had asked his friends, before his trial, to see that he was buried next to his wife, the Judge's words have an odd ring. Marshall Hall lodged an appeal but Lock did not bother to attend in London, as was his right.
Sir Travers Humphreys writes:
'English juries undoubtedly attach great importance to proof of motive where the evidence against the accused, of having done the act charged, is not very strong; while on the other hand, and particularly in charges of murder, they are quite ready to accept the direction of the trial judge to the effect that if the killing is clearly brought home to the accused, proof of motive
122
he loved best
H. J. LETHBRIDGE
Yes, there is no doubt he did it, but at the
time he did it he was insane',12
That Marshall Hall was baffled by Lock's behaviour is evident. He developed a subsidiary defence that his client had run amok (a line of defence that quickly fizzled out when Lock's son said, in cross-examination, that he had never seen a Chinese behaving in that way). It was also clear that Marshall Hall, like many of his countrymen in 1925, had no firm grasp or understanding of the sociology or anthropology of Chinese society. To run ‘amok' or 'amuck' is a Malay phenomenon; the Chinese have never been accused of this type of behaviour. The Malay word refers to a person who unexpectedly and frenziedly attacks with a kris anyone found in his track, and is only stopped when cut down or otherwise overcome.13 Rather lamely, the eminent K.C. concluded: 'I do not think we can get into the mind of an Oriental'. It was plain that Marshall Hall could not do so.
The counsel for the prosecution, Sir Ellis Griffith,1 said in reply to Marshall Hall's impassioned oratory, "The upraised hand and uplifted voice is not for the prosecution'. The jury was out for only twelve minutes before they returned a verdict of 'Guilty'. Mr. Justice MacKinnon was greatly distressed when he came to pass sentence, for this was his first murder trial.1 "You have been convicted by your adopted countrymen of this crime', the Judge said. He exhorted Lock to meet death with the bravery that a man should'. Since Lock had sat impassively
15
poker-faced throughout his trial at the Chester Assizes in 1926 and had asked his friends, before his trial, to see that he was buried next to his wife, the Judge's words have an odd ring. Marshall Hall lodged an appeal but Lock did not bother to attend in London, as was his right.
Sir Travers Humphreys writes:
'English juries undoubtedly attach great importance to proof of motive where the evidence against the accused, of having done the act charged, is not very strong; while on the other hand, and particularly in charges of murder, they are quite ready to accept the direction of the trial judge to the effect that if the killing is clearly brought home to the accused, proof of motive
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.