Was it Murder or Manslaughter?
A Seattle newspaper criticizes a jury's decision to convict William Wilcox of manslaughter instead of murder for the death of Mrs. Charlotte Petting.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
William Wilcox, charged with the murder of Mrs. Charlotte Petting on the night of September 4, 1893, has been convicted of manslaughter. In our judgment, this verdict is perfectly absurd. The woman was butchered for her money; the person or persons who committed this crime are guilty of murder. If the jury believed Wilcox killed her, he is guilty of murder; he cannot possibly be guilty of manslaughter, and it is a travesty on justice to bring in such a verdict. The law fairly assumes that a burglar or highwayman is a murderer if in the execution of his purpose he takes life. These stupid compromise verdicts of manslaughter, when it is perfectly clear that the accused is either guilty of murder as charged or entitled to an acquittal, are altogether too common in this state.
“The law fairly assumes that a burglar or highwayman is a murderer, if in the execution of his purpose he takes life.”
This editorial reflects the intense public and media scrutiny of legal outcomes in late 19th-century Seattle, highlighting the era's preoccupation with 'law and order' and the distrust of judicial leniency. Similar tensions between jury verdicts, prosecutorial performance, and public opinion remain a fixture of local civic discourse in Seattle today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.