CHAPTER SEVEN: The Verdict
‘The jury must decide if this slaughter by this woman was the act of an insane woman or only the act of a reckless and vindictive woman’.
In his address to the jury, Camellia’s defence counsel argued that the medical evidence supported a not guilty verdict because she was insane. Crown prosecutor Gurner summed up saying that if the jury agreed with the defence they should bring in a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity. If, on the other hand, she had ‘worked herself up into a passion in brooding over her wrongs and then killed her three children the verdict should be one of guilty’.
Justice A’Beckett stated that there was nothing to suggest insanity, apart from the medical evidence. McDonald’s behaviour towards Camellia ‘had nothing to do with the matter’. The jury must decide if ‘this slaughter by this woman was the act of an insane woman or only the act of a reckless and vindictive woman’. He pointed out that they were not obliged to follow the medical opinion, but if they did they would find her not guilty on the ground of insanity. Justice A’Beckett does not appear to have been convinced of Camellia’s insanity, but the jury accepted it and found her not guilty. She was not released, neither was she sent to an asylum for the mentally ill. Instead she was to be kept ‘in strict custody’ at the Bendigo Gaol ‘until the Governor’s pleasure be known’. The Judge wrote to the Attorney General on October 11, 1910:
I have the honour to report that on the 4th day of October at Bendigo Camellia McCluskey was presented for the murder of one of her children. She had killed the child and her two other children to avenge supposed injuries from the father with whom she had been living for some years.
Her counsel Mr Maxwell raised the defence of insanity. He called two medical witnesses Dr Gaffney and Dr Fullerton. In reply Mr Gurner the Crown Prosecutor called Dr Eadie the Medical Officer of the gaol. His evidence went rather to strengthen than to weaken the conclusions of the doctors called for the defence.
The jury retired for about half an hour and returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity. Pursuant to Sec 458 of the Crimes Act 1891 I directed that she should be kept in strict custody at the Bendigo Gaol until the pleasure of His Excellency the Governor should be known.
Ernest Jones, Inspector General of the Insane, examined Camellia on October 22 and concluded she was sane:
Re Camellia McCluskey
I beg to inform you that yesterday (Oct 22. 1910) I visited the Bendigo Gaol, saw and examined the abovementioned prisoner.
I came to the conclusion she is sane.
The Government Medical Officer examined Camellia on October 29 and reported to the Attorney General:
Her bodily health is poor, and has probably been so for some time. Her present weight is only 6 stone 9 pounds. Mentally, at the present time, there is no evidence of any form of mental derangement. Her story as related to me is one of the most pitiful it has been my experience to hear. I am of opinion her crime, which was accompanied by a useless destruction of property, was the result of a fury or passion invoked by jealousy; neglect; broken promises; the mode of life she was living (she looked upon herself as an outcast) and by the knowledge her children had no name. She tells me she has no remembrance of what she did to the twins and whilst sitting upstairs – on hearing the voices of children playing in the street – she suddenly realised what she had done.
Although perfectly sane at the time of my examination, I am of opinion it would be advisable to transfer her to the Melbourne Gaol where she would be under my daily observation.
In the nineteenth century British psychiatrists considered infanticide, as well as suicide, to be an ‘irresistible impulse’, and believed the shock of actually killing her child brought the woman back to her senses. By focussing on impulse as the cause of the crime, the woman was portrayed as a victim of illness rather than a murderer. Australia tended to follow Britain in such matters and although Camellia’s children were not infants and the crime was not infanticide it is easy to see how her case was treated in a similar fashion to infanticide cases. In the Victorian Era marriage and motherhood were seen as a woman’s greatest achievements and mental breakdown was often attributed to sexual experience which did not lead to marriage. Women were seen as more susceptible to mental illness than men and unexpected behaviour was seen by doctors, police and families to indicate such illness.
There were 242 cases of infanticide in Sydney between 1900 and 1909 and the Inspector General of Police in New South Wales claimed that for every one exposed there were perhaps seven others hidden. Of 86 infanticide cases at the New South Wales Supreme Court from 1903-1939, 90% were either acquitted or convicted of lesser charges. It was not until 1922 that infanticide was available in Victoria as a legal defence for murder, allowable if the defendant could prove she had killed her new-born child while in a disturbed mental state due to the effects of childbirth.
Stephen Garton, in his history of mental illness in New South Wales in 1880-1940, claims that an increasing number of behaviours were defined as madness in the early twentieth century and that women themselves, as well as police, local doctors and neighbours, were influenced by the new discourses on women and madness. Mental illness in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was categorized as either physical or moral; moral cases were thought to be caused by ‘worry, stress, anxiety, grief and ‘recent financial losses.’
Camellia’s circumstances fit very comfortably into this category of worry and anxiety and it is not difficult to understand the jury’s sympathy. In a similar case today it is inconceivable that she would be treated as leniently as she was in 1910; juries were all men and Camellia was, by all accounts, a frail-looking ‘faded beauty’. Perhaps these men felt they were being chivalrous; perhaps, like the Truth reporter, they considered Camellia the victim while the real villain in the case was obviously George, who had forced her, by his ungallant and repugnant behaviour, into murdering her own children. Women were weak creatures, not unlike children, and men were supposed to protect them, especially if they were middle-class. Such conduct as George had displayed was absolutely intolerable; at least he should have had the decency to be more discreet. As the head of the house he was responsible for his household and for the actions of his dependants. The judge was the only one who appeared to disagree with this sentiment, stating that George’s behaviour had nothing to do with the case.
The Bendigo Gaol was not a women’s prison. There was a small section allotted for women, cellar-like dormitory accommodation with just enough room to house women to do all the laundry. Few if any of the other female prisoners would have been middle-class women and most were probably there for crimes such as drunkenness or other unacceptable public behaviours. Camellia must have been shocked by the conditions she found herself trapped in. The gaol closed in 2006 and I was able to visit and see for myself what the accommodation was like. Just next to the women’s dormitory section is a tunnel with dungeon-like rooms for some of the worst offenders. The main sections of the prison are in other buildings, with the men housed in just the kind of tiny rooms we would expect from a 19th century prison.
At the time of my visit it was obvious the women’s quarters had not been used for many years and they had none of the modern conveniences the men’s cells had, such as toilets. One of the guides suggested that many women were arrested for the sole purpose of doing the prison’s laundry and women who were there for major crimes such as Camellia’s were very rare. The rooms were in poor condition and it was difficult to imagine Camellia there. She seems much more suited to the two-storey house where she lived for such a short time. In fact she spent more time at the Bendigo Gaol than she did at the house, so she may have felt quite at home there! She appears to have been well treated by warders and police and the legal system generally, as an object of pity rather than contempt.
The Bendigo Advertiser reported on October 10, 1910, on the case of Camellia and another murder case:
Melbourne, 8th
October.
Two prisoners who were recently found not guilty of murder charged against them on the ground of insanity are being detained till the pleasure of the Governor is made known. This means that the prisoners will be deprived of their liberty till the Attorney-General of the day advises the Governor – if he ever sees fit to do so – that they be released.
As to the place of detention in future, that will depend on medical reports now awaited. One of the prisoners is Camellia McCluskey, a single woman, who was charged with the murder of her three children at Bendigo. She is still in Bendigo gaol, and will remain there till the report of the Medical Officer is received, and the Attorney-General, on that report, advises his Excellency to transfer her to another prison (Pentridge) or to an asylum for the insane. The same remark applies to Ernest Peck, who was charged with murder at Bairnsdale, and who is now in the Melbourne Gaol.
At this time most prisoners charged with murder and found not guilty on the ground of insanity, and ordered to be detained during the Governor’s pleasure, were kept in prison. The minority were sent to lunatic asylums.
CHAPTER EIGHT: The Transfer
I have the honour to inform you the Sisters of the Good Shepherd are willing to take charge of Camellia McCluskey in the event of her liberation from prison, but only on the understanding that she be considered not insane.
It was not long after the trial that Camellia’s family began attempting to have her released from prison. Her uncle, David Treahy, (her late mother’s brother-in-law) who paid for her defence, wrote to J. Morrissey, on October 10, 1910, asking him to use his influence to obtain Camellia’s release from prison. Treahy reminded Morrissey of a favour he had provided, in supporting ‘[his] man’ in his election to the Upper House:
‘I received a letter from you some months ago prior to the contest for a seat in the Upper House between Mr Balieu and Adams. It is needless to tell you that we supported your man for two reasons. 1st For his own sterling worth, as he is very popular here in Shepparton. 2nd Because you asked us to. Many voted for him who were opposed to his policy because of the genuine and manly ring in all his utterances. We were pleased at his victory.
I am now going to ask a request of you and I feel sure that you will comply. You’ve no doubt read of the Bendigo tragedy where the poor unfortunate woman Camellia McCluskey murdered her three children in a state of frenzy perhaps you are not aware that she is closely related to us being a niece of my wife’s and Mr W. Sayer who are brother and sister. We found Maxwell to defend her and were instructed by Mr Luke Murphy of Bendigo. She was as you are doubtless aware found Not Guilty on the plea of insanity but is to be confined for a while according to the Governor in Council’s pleasure. From inquiries made we are told that the best course is to get some of the most influential men in Melbourne to approach the Governor in Council with us to see if we can get her transferred to Abbotsford Convent. The Nuns of which have expressed a great willingness to receive her and give her a home for life. And the poor woman is most anxious to avail herself of the opportunity as she is a thorough penitent. Mr Sayer and the Reverend Mother here were most anxious that I should communicate with you the effect being that of getting the services of Messrs Balieu, Graham, Cussen and Sternberg, to wait on the Governor in Council with the view of having her transferred at once, as we fear if she is transferred to Coburg [prison] it will affect her nerves, which are rather unsettled yet. We have a letter from the Mother Superior at Abbotsford stating her willingness to receive her into the home. You would perhaps have an opportunity of seeing these gentlemen personally, and a few words from you would carry much more weight than our writing to them. However if you think that you could arrange an interview I would write to Messrs Graham and Cussen.
On October 24, Ballieu forwarded Treahy’s letter to the Premier with the attached note:
I enclose a letter that has been forwarded by Mr Morrissey, and if you can spare the time to read it I shall be glad. As the request seems to me one that the Cabinet might very well consider, I propose to bring it forward this afternoon, and desire to give you this notice.
Meanwhile Camellia’s father was also doing his utmost to have his daughter released. He may not have had the influence and resources of his brother-in-law, but he certainly cared about Camellia’s welfare. He wrote to the Attorney general on December 19:
Dear Sir,
I have a daughter in the gaol at Bendigo awaiting the Governor’s pleasure to get released. I hope you would grant me a kindness and get her out at the earliest convenience as she is in poor health also it is a cost and expense to the government and as I have a good home for her on this settlement or I can get her into a convent.
I remain her Poor Father,
P.F. McCluskey.
Patrick also wrote to Mr John Gray, MLH, on the same day, asking for his help in securing Camellia’s release:
Hon. J. Gray,
Dear Sir,
I have a daughter in the Bendigo Gaol awaiting the Governor’s pleasure to be released as that was the sentence for the crime she committed.
You would do me a great favour if you would use the influence you have in the proper quarter to get her released as her health is not too good. She has been very poorly the last two years with the treatment she got from that scoundrel she took on with.
I can give her a home here with me as I have a block of land or can get her into a convent if she wishes to go to one.
The nuns of the Convent of the Good Shepherd in Abbotsford were also anxious to help Camellia and to provide her with a more suitable place of confinement than the Bendigo Gaol. They had no facilities for care of the insane and were adamant she must be confirmed as sane before she came to the convent. Sister Mary of St Aloysius, Provincial Superioress, wrote to Mr Anderson, Secretary of the Law Department, on January 6, 1911:
Dear Sir,
In reply to your favour of the 5th instant I have the honour to inform you the Sisters of the Good Shepherd are willing to take charge of Camellia McCluskey in the event of her liberation from prison, but only on the understanding that she be considered not insane. It seems unnecessary to mention this condition, as we have entire confidence that Authorities would not otherwise commit her to this Home.
Hoping there may arise no obstacle to the poor woman being sent to Abbotsford at an early date.
On January 12, 1911, Gaol Medical Officer Dr Eadie wrote a statement declaring Camellia to be sane. He said that both her physical and her mental condition had improved ‘very considerably’ since her detention and especially after the trial was finished. He had had ‘every opportunity’ to understand her mental condition and believed her to be ‘quite sound in mind without the slightest trace of mental weakness’. He added that he did not think there was any likelihood of her mental state changing if she were to be discharged.
In spite of her uncle’s assurances to the contrary, Camellia had no desire to exchange her prison for another at a convent. She wrote in January to the Inspector General of the Penal Department asking that she be released instead to her father:
Re the communication concerning my release from this gaol on condition that I undertake to place myself under the charge of the Nuns at Abbotsford and remain there. I am anxious to obtain my freedom but not on that condition. I have my father at Merbein to whom I prefer to go and who is anxious to have me. My health is such that I want to be where I can have as much nourishment as possible and no confinement whatever. And I feel sure I would not be happy in the convent and feel the confinement as bad as I do here.
I am quite capable of going to my father and remaining under his charge and care.
Trusting you will favour my request and grant my release to go to him.
In spite of Camellia’s wishes and Dr Eadie’s statement about her sanity, the Inspector General was not willing to take the chance of releasing her too soon. His deputy replied, to the Governor of Bendigo Gaol in early February, asking him to inform Camellia that if she was prepared to pl
ace herself under the Abbotsford nuns’ care for six months, the Minister would then favourably consider the question of releasing her to her father’s care. This release would depend on another satisfactory medical report at that time. The Governor of the Gaol was asked to obtain Camellia’s reply in writing and she had little choice then but to accept the offer. The Government Medical Officer had recommended her transfer to Coburg Prison, where she would be under his daily observation. Instead she was to be sent to a convent, now officially sane. And although her uncle’s letter stated that the convent were willing to take her in for the rest of her life, she was only expecting to stay for six months.
I have been notified that my release will be granted on the condition that I place myself in the charge of the nuns at Abbotsford for a period of six months, before going to my father, which I am quite willing to do and of my own free will for the time stated.
Camellia has taken the words ‘favourably consider the question of releasing’ to be a definite promise of release. Her first letter shows that she thought herself a patient rather than a prisoner. It is all about her comfort – her health and her happiness. She takes for granted that the authorities have her well-being at heart; she had been found not guilty after all, so perhaps that was not an unreasonable assumption on her part. Camellia signed an official release order on March 7, witnessed by a female warder:
His Excellency the Governor of the State of Victoria having been pleased pursuant to the provisions of the Crimes Act 1910 to order the release of CAMELLIA McCLUSKEY (at present under order to be detained in custody in the Gaol at Bendigo until His Excellency’s pleasure be known) upon the condition that the said CAMELLIA McCLUSKEY shall remain in the charge of the Nuns of the Good Shepherd in their Convent in the State of Victoria for such time as His Excellency shall further direct: NOW I the said CAMELLIA McCLUSKEY agree to conform to and be bound by such condition.
The Abbotsford nuns were more than willing to help Camellia. Sister Mary wrote to Anderson:
Not Guilty Page 6
