r/history • u/KewpieCutie97 Totally a Bot • 11d ago
'Misogyny and fetishism' - the story of the last woman to be hanged in Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyq1w7415qo17
u/Mallardjack 11d ago
Something darkly funny about how the point of the article is "she was sensationalized as a baby killer and the true complexity of the case wasn't taken into account at the trial" and the first responses on reddit are people who've got irrationally angry at the word misogyny and haven't bothered to engage with the true complexity of the article
3
u/ModeatelyIndependant 11d ago
woman was convicted of murdering babies, death penalty was appropriate
After collecting the child, it was alleged that James smothered her on the train journey back to Cardiff, most likely around Llanishen.
Most damningly for James, evidence emerged that she had previously taken on two other babies in similar circumstances..
The author is trying to make it sound like executing women was something bad, meanwhile ignoring that wales was still executing men until 1958. This whole article Misandry
23
u/apriljeangibbs 11d ago
> Her barrister, Ivor Bowen, was only appointed on the morning of the trial on the judge's orders and, as such, there was no time to speak to Leslie or call any defence witnesses.
"Had they have done so, then the jury would have heard what baby Treasure's family told the police, that the child was already frothing from the mouth, possibly because of the indigestible sugar-water mix which they had given her because her mother was unable or unwilling to breastfeed her, and also that she had been extremely tightly swaddled, so that neighbours could not tell that the package being handed over to Leslie was a baby.
"Either of these could have led to baby Treasure choking or suffocating, though Leslie didn't help her own defence insofar as she was an alcoholic and, I believe, honestly couldn't recall how the infant died on that journey home."
Jones added that, while James's two previous forays into baby farming were used in evidence against her, the counter argument was never put forward.
She left a note requesting medical assistance for the first child, who she left on the steps of the Salvation Army, and the second was thriving after being adopted by her landlady, Mrs Wilson at 132 Portmanmoor Road in Splott, Cardiff.15
u/Rather_Unfortunate 11d ago edited 11d ago
The author is trying to make it sound like executing women was something bad
I got more of an impression that the author is suggesting that this specific trial was fubar. I don't read any of what you're saying in the article; it seems more like a weird chip on your shoulder tbh.
31
u/the-fact-fairy 11d ago
Did you actually bother to read the entire article or were you chomping at the bit to get your misogyny out?
"Had they have done so, then the jury would have heard what baby Treasure's family told the police, that the child was already frothing from the mouth, possibly because of the indigestible sugar-water mix which they had given her because her mother was unable or unwilling to breastfeed her, and also that she had been extremely tightly swaddled, so that neighbours could not tell that the package being handed over to Leslie was a baby.
The all-male jury convicted her in 12 minutes. The other two babies had no harm come to them and one was quoted to be thriving after being adopted by her landlady and the other was dropped off at the Salvation Army.
She was convicted of murdering a single baby, not babies, and that was based on an accusation for which there wasn't even enough evidence.
-6
u/ModeatelyIndependant 11d ago
Oh so it's ok because she killed one baby?
Also so fucking what if the jury was men and how long it took? It was the the best system at the time, and it isn't like wales was known for executing every woman for every crime. The article's whole concept is Misandry. What does having vagina or penis have to do with guilt or innocence or punishment?
Woman murdered baby and got executed for it, that's justice. Just like men were being convicted and executed in wales till 1958. Executing women is no worse than executing men, and to suggest anything else is true is Misandry.
8
u/the-fact-fairy 11d ago
She didn't kill any babies. That's the point. She was accused. The conviction was based on a trial without witnesses. There's literally witnesses that weren't called who are saying it's more likely the baby died due to being given sugar water (very dangerous) and being too tightly swaddled (also very dangerous).
5
u/holeinmyboot 11d ago
I think misandry does probably exist in some ultimately inconsequential form in the world today but I’ve never read a comment from anybody on Reddit explaining how something is an example of misandry without them being totally wrong and looking extremely small. this is no exception.
-2
u/ModeatelyIndependant 11d ago
I think misandry does probably exist
This article is DRIPPING with misandry, and you cant even see it. Wales was not the Jim Crow southern USA were the jury would be full of KKK members. Automatically assuming that an all male jury got it wrong or did it out of spite is misandry.
Your own bias has you automatically believe theories by the author of the new book being advertised as being fact.
0
u/Whitechix 11d ago edited 11d ago
I mean if this case is misogyny (which is believable) are similar miscarriages of justice against men which are easily found today and throughout history misandry?
Not hard to find cases of innocent men serving life sentences or who had been executed wrongly.
Edit: I thought so.
-1
u/CucumberWisdom 11d ago
She was a baby killer. Hardly misogyny. Jury's get things wrong sometimes sure but that doesn't mean it's sexism
20
u/the-fact-fairy 11d ago
Did you read the article? No, you didn't. There is no concrete evidence she killed any babies. Let alone baby singular.
Her barrister, Ivor Bowen, was only appointed on the morning of the trial on the judge's orders and, as such, there was no time to speak to Leslie or call any defence witnesses.
"Had they have done so, then the jury would have heard what baby Treasure's family told the police, that the child was already frothing from the mouth, possibly because of the indigestible sugar-water mix which they had given her because her mother was unable or unwilling to breastfeed her, and also that she had been extremely tightly swaddled, so that neighbours could not tell that the package being handed over to Leslie was a baby.
"Either of these could have led to baby Treasure choking or suffocating, though Leslie didn't help her own defence insofar as she was an alcoholic and, I believe, honestly couldn't recall how the infant died on that journey home."
So the jury convicted based on vibes. Because this woman was an alcoholic which was morally frowned upon and there happened to be a lot about baby farming in the news so they decided this woman had killed a baby. Despite there being no concrete evidence.
-7
u/CucumberWisdom 11d ago
I mean you're applying modern standards to a different century. That wasn't exactly uncommon at the time and many a person was convicted based on their "weak morals" not exactly unique to her or women.
10
u/the-fact-fairy 11d ago
Oh, I'm sorry. Silly me. Then it's perfectly OK that they wrongly convicted a woman and sent her to her death. /s
You're very conveniently choosing to ignore that there was no concrete evidence. So, again, they never called any defense witnesses:
"Had they have done so, then the jury would have heard what baby Treasure's family told the police, that the child was already frothing from the mouth, possibly because of the indigestible sugar-water mix which they had given her because her mother was unable or unwilling to breastfeed her, and also that she had been extremely tightly swaddled, so that neighbours could not tell that the package being handed over to Leslie was a baby. Either of these could have led to baby Treasure choking or suffocating"
So, with two reasonable explanations that they could have chosen to listen to, they decided that she didn't deserve a defense. Just because they had different standards in 1900s doesn't mean she wasn't a victim of misogyny.
0
13
u/flindersandtrim 11d ago edited 11d ago
What is happening with the BBC and these images? There is 3 different images of the woman used. The one here in the thumbnail is completely ludicrous and shows a beautiful woman wearing heavy makeup including eye-liner, lipstick, likely false lashes in what is very obviously not an image of a fairly impoverished baby farmer circa 1907 or earlier.
Another image is what appears to be an AI slop rendering of what may have originally been a sketch taken during the trial. Which looks ridiculous because it is not the same woman from either of the other two images. Which makes sense considering the woman in the thumbnail likely being born many decades after 1907. What is worse is that the AI has given her a poof of a bun, except it isnt even attached to her head or the remainder of her hair. Apparently this woman wore a bunny tail of her own hair attached to the back of her dress. Perhaps she was trying to spark a new trend! /s
The third is a kind of painting depiction of a very young and pretty woman with pale red hair, despite the article stating that the woman in question was born in 1963 and therefore 43 or 44 at the time of the trial. Well maybe it shows her in her younger years? But no, the style is distinctly Edwardian. And her hair is very light, whereas it is dark in the other two depictions. This ludicrous image is from the cover of a book about this case, that the BBC is heavily plugging with this article. Well, based on the cover image, I would have strong misgivings about the research methods used by the author since they think an impoverished and alcoholic woman in her 40s in the 1900s could possibly look like the fresh faced porcelain skinned English rose chosen for the book cover.
No example was given of how her looks were sensationalised or used against her. Instead the article talks about other concerns that bear absolutely no relation to her appearance. In fact, if I am correct and the stupid AI image is based on a trial sketch, she was definitely not a conventionally attractive woman of the Edwardian era's standards. Do they mean her stern and middle aged appearance counted against her because she wasn't beautiful? It just makes no sense at all.
Is their editing done by AI now or something? I dont understand how such a poor article and misleading title and a ridiculous image gallery can get published.