The Mammoth Book of Unsolved Crimes (58 page)

Dr Adams concurred generally in the evidence of Dr Rynd, but admitted that it was unusual for an epileptic to scream more than once—“the first scream is the rule”. Cross-examined, a wet cloth over the mouth and nose would produce all the effects of drowning. If a person was held under water it would cause congestion. It all depended upon the mouth and nose being under water. He had never known a case of accidental drowning where similar bleeding from the organs occurred, nor had he ever heard of a case of epilepsy accompanied by such bleedings. Reexamined, pressure applied to the chest would leave some external marks of violence.

The case for the defence being here closed, Mr Hayes replied on the part of the Crown. He told the jury to disregard the rumours which had been circulated to the prisoner’s prejudice, and defended the prosecution from the animadversions of Mr Butt. Having reviewed the accused’s connection with the woman Kenny, whom he had represented as “Mrs Kirwan”, counsel dealt with the quarrel and the threats against his wife’s life.

He then described the fatal excursion to the island on 6 September. As to the fact of the three screams, sworn to by five witnesses, there could be no possibility of doubt; that they were the shrieks of epilepsy was an ingenious suggestion, unsupported by proof.

Why did Mr Kirwan say nothing about the screams? He must have heard them; he hadn’t seen his wife for an hour; “and yet this affectionate husband is deaf to these dreadful shrieks”. If he knew she were subject to fits he would have run to her assistance but he is found calmly waiting for the boat, and all he says is “Nangle, come up for the bag!” The first mention of the missing lady comes from the boatman, not from the distracted, agonized husband. Two hours after this lady set out to bathe, the search for her is begun in the dark. At first it is fruitless. They would note that Patrick, calling out near the boat, is heard by Michael at the Long Hole. Was it too much to suppose that if the prisoner had been at that part of the island he would hear screams from the Long Hole? The search was renewed, the body was found, and the question now arose, whether, upon all the facts and circumstances of the case, death was caused by accident or by Mr Kirwan. No direct evidence was possible; and it was from circumstantial evidence alone that the jury could arrive at a conclusion. How came that sheet beneath the body? It should have been left high and dry for her use when she came out. The position of the bathing dress, too, was inexplicable. At seven o’clock, if this lady was then bathing, the tide was going out, and there was 1 ft 9 in. of water over the “body” rock, which was 1 ft high. She was an expert swimmer: was it likely that she should be accidentally drowned there?

As to what happened when the body was found, Patrick Nangle was a better witness than Michael, who on his own showing saw but little of it. If the deceased left her husband about six o’clock, and if he did not see her thereafter, it was very strange that he should be able at once to know where her clothes lay, in a spot to which he pointed and in which Patrick, who was familiar with the place, had failed to find them. The discrepancy between the Nangles with respect to the sheet is reconciled if what Kirwan brought down from the rock in his hand with the shawl was the chemise. That chemise was not forthcoming: it was for the jury to say whether it was not the “something white” to which Michael referred. With regard to the prisoner’s insistence on the washing of the body, he, a gentleman of position and education, was sworn to have said: “I don’t care a damn for the police; the body must be washed,” although he knew his wife had met her death suddenly on a lonely island, and that every circumstance as to the state of the body was most important to the ends of justice. Moreover, he was actually warned of the coming investigation. The women who washed the body were positive that the scratches were not caused by crabs.

The bathing cap, found at high-water mark, with the strings tied tight, was also against the supposition of death by epilepsy or accident. Might it not have been torn off in the struggle that took place before the sheet was thrown over her head? Dr Adams, with all his great experience, never knew a case of death from simple drowning or epilepsy in which such bleeding occurred, and yet in the face of that testimony they were asked to say that Mrs Kirwan’s death was accidental! If, apart from the medical evidence, the conduct and demeanour of the prisoner together with the whole facts and circumstances of the case, left no rational doubt of his guilt, it was their duty to find him guilty.

In charging the jury, Mr Justice Crampton referred to the mantle of mystery spread over the case, and explained the nature and effect of circumstantial evidence. Having reviewed the undisputed facts, his lordship went through the proof at large. That the parties were not living on good terms as husband and wife was proved by the character and conduct of the prisoner. The testimony of all the medical men was, substantially, that the external injuries could not have been the cause of death. While they found no marks of violence, that did not exclude the mode of destruction suggested by the Crown—the forcible application of the sheet—which the doctors admitted would leave no signs distinguishable from those of drowning. All were agreed that the appearances, external and internal, were consistent with either simple drowning or forcible immersion. Dr Hatchell went further: he thought the congestion greater than could be accounted for by drowning alone. Thus the jury were left by the doctors in a state of much uncertainty. His Lordship then commented on the demeanour of the prisoner on 6 September. The jury would consider whether that was due to genuine grief or was merely affected to avert suspicion. As to the sheet, it was for them to decide which of the Nangles was in error. Both seemed anxious to tell the truth; but it was very dark at the time, a fact which should also be kept in view with reference to the finding of the clothes. Patrick Nangle’s account of his being interrupted by Mr Kirwan at the inquest was corroborated by the Coroner. It was admitted that three cries from Ireland’s Eye were heard that evening about seven o’clock. If the screams heard by Larkin came from the Long Hole they must have come across the island, and consequently must have been heard by the prisoner. The credit of the five witnesses who heard these cries was unimpeached. If they were uttered by the deceased lady, what caused them? Undoubtedly, pressing and imminent danger of some kind. Were they the screams of a person seized by epilepsy, or were they due to pain or fear caused by another? The jury would consider whether the character of the cries was consistent with an attack of epilepsy to a person bathing. They would also consider whether this lady, an experienced bather and an expert swimmer, was swimming in two feet nine inches of water when she was seized with epilepsy and gave the screams described. It was impossible that she herself placed the sheet where it was found, as the rock was then covered by water. How came she upon that rock? Was it probable that the tide threw her on it and left her there? Again, did she ever in her life have an epileptic fit? Suspicion must not be confounded with evidence. But if they could not reconcile these facts with the prisoner’s innocence, they must not pass them over; if, on the other hand, they were not satisfied that Mrs Kirwan’s death was the result of violence, they would acquit him.

At seven o’clock the jury retired to consider their verdict. Returning in forty minutes, they intimated that they could not agree, and the Court adjourned till eleven o’clock. On its reassembling, however, the jury were no further forward, and it was proposed to lock them up all night and to take their verdict in the morning. They asked for a little more time, and wished to hear Dr Adams repeat his testimony, but the judge supposed that gentleman was then fast asleep; he gave them his own recollection of the doctor’s evidence: that death might have been caused by either simple or forcible drowning. The jury then said they were likely to agree, and in fifteen minutes arrived at a verdict of guilty. The Court adjourned.

When the Court met next day to pronounce sentence, Mr Butt moved that certain questions of law be reserved for the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal,
²³
namely, whether the evidence of the prisoner having lived at Sandymount with a woman who called herself “Mrs Kirwan” was admissible: whether the verdict was founded on the testimony of Dr Adams, a witness for the defence; and whether the deposition of the prisoner at the inquest ought to have been admitted? The Court refused the application. Asked what he had to say why sentence of death should not be passed against him, the prisoner, “in a firm and perfectly calm voice”, made no fresh statement and merely repeated the facts known to everyone in court. Mr Justice Crampton said:

His Lordship then pronounced sentence of death, intimating his own concurrence and that of his learned brother in the rightness of the verdict, and pointing out that there was no hope of pardon on this side of the grave. The prisoner, again protesting his innocence, was removed under escort to Kilmainham Jail, and the Court rose.

The Official Report of the trial concludes: “By order of the Executive Government the sentence was commuted to transportation for life.” The result was achieved by the joint endeavours of the Rev. J. A. Malet, who produced a brochure entitled
The Kirwan Case
, and of J. Knight Boswell, a Dublin solicitor, who published a pamphlet on similar lines. Both tracts give an
ex parte
review of the evidence and contain a series of declarations by divers persons, more or less relevant to the issue, as to which it may be generally observed that such irresponsible pronouncements, not upon oath, are plainly of less value than statements sworn to in court. I have space but to glance at this new “evidence”.

The Kirwan Case
crop includes Mrs Crowe, the mother of Mrs Kirwan, who said she was in constant touch with her daughter and that Mr Kirwan was always a most kind, affectionate husband. She makes no reference to the Sandymount establishment, and as regards her daughter’s health, condescends only upon sleeplessness; she does not mention fits. Her daughter was “very venturesome in the water, going into the deep parts of the sea, and continuing therein for a much longer period than other ladies”. Mrs Bentley said that she knew the deceased intimately. Mrs Kirwan became aware of the Kenny connection within a month of her marriage, and “exhibited no emotion on the subject”. Two years before, she told the declarant that she had a fit in presence of her husband. Two other ladies severally averred that Patrick Nangle had equivocated about the sheet, and had expressed an intention to “pinch” Mr Kirwan at the trial. There follows a certificate by ten Dublin physicians and surgeons, proceeding upon the “sworn testimony annexed”, that the appearances were “quite compatible with death caused by simple drowning or by seizure of a fit in the water”; and that they were “given to understand that Mrs Kirwan’s father died of a fit eight years ago”.
²⁴
The great Dr Taylor wrote on 20 December, 1852, denouncing the verdict: we shall hear his opinion presently. Anne Maher, Kirwan’s servant, said that two years before Mrs Kirwan had a fit in presence of her husband and one Kelly. Arthur Kelly said that he had been Kirwan’s “assistant” for twelve years; he assisted at two fits, one two years ago and another in June last, just before Mrs Kirwan left for Howth.
Neither of these declarations were upon oath
—Anne Maher could not write.
²⁵
An uncle and a cousin of the deceased said that she often complained of blood to the head and “confusion of ideas”; adding with delightful, if unconscious humour that she spoke in the highest praise of her husband’s conduct and “always appeared in the full and affluent enjoyment of comfort and respectability”. Mr Butt wrote to say that the epileptic theory was not thought of till the second day of the trial, when it was suggested by a medical witness, too late to call evidence in its support—as though he had not had an opportunity of consulting his own client! The remaining volunteers allege that Kirwan had nothing to do with choosing the wet grave, that the Crown expert’s measurements at the Long Hole were defective, that the acoustics of the island were other than as represented, and that Mrs Kirwan once told a servant, with reference to a little boy who came to the house enquiring for “dada”, “that it was Mr Kirwan’s son, and he had two or three more of them”. Here endeth
The Kirwan Case
.