with Sarah Hawkswood
We are delighted to welcome author Sarah Hawkswood to Omnimystery News today.
Sarah's debut novel is The Lord Bishop's Clerk (The History Press; January 2015 trade paperback and ebook formats), the first in a new series of twelfth century murder mysteries set in Worcestershire during The Anarchy.
.
We asked her to tell us a little more about the time period of her series, and she titles her guest post for us today, "Getting Away with Murder — Easier in the 12th Century?"
— ♦ —
Photo provided courtesy of
Sarah Hawkswood
At first the answer to the titular question looks blindingly obvious; of course it must have been easier. There were no forensics, none of our CSI teams, none of the modern devices that can be studied to see where we have been and what we do, from buying the groceries to 'seeing us' ambling down a city street, or finding out who we spoke to on our mobile phone. Anyone investigating a crime in the 12th century was most unlikely to be able to record what witnesses might say to them, and had to file everything by memory.
Which is where we have to admit that the early mediaeval murder mystery really IS fiction, because there were not men haring about the countryside 'policing'. It was far more local, and community based, where the locals were bound, under law, to raise a 'hue and cry' after suspected criminals, who were then handed over to the king's representative, the Sheriff, and then went to trial ( which had more to do with others swearing oaths that you were of good character than presenting evidence). England, and the kingdoms that amalgamated to form it, had law codes going back to King Aethelbert of Kent in the early seventh century AD. The administration of law, the king's law, was through the king's official in a shire (county), the 'scir gerif', the 'shire reeve' which became the 'Sheriff'. He collected the king's taxes and was responsible for what we would think of as the 'militia' in a shire. He did not investigate crime, unless it was of someone very, very important, or somewhere outside of community bounds, such as the king's highway. He did have a serjeant, who did day to day collecting, of those apprehended, and of tax, and generally an under-sheriff, since he would be a very major lord with many other things to take up his time. He delegated.
So, a murderer had no dedicated 'police officer' seeking him, and even if he had, as with my Bradecote & Catchpoll, they had to rely upon their memory, experience, and wits. What is more, the trail would often be cold before the corpse. You might even wonder how any killers were caught.
Let us look at things again. The vast majority of murders are committed by someone known to the victim, and a lot are 'domestic, and are in 'hot blood'. Human nature has not changed, and the same was true the better part of a thousand years ago. Additionally, one could only escape from the scene of the crime upon two legs, or possibly four, so in the immediate aftermath, the murderer was not going far.
Since the 'hue and cry' would be raised by the locals, generally a killer's neighbours, they knew the lie of the land as he did, the places to hide, the quickest trackways. They also knew each other's business, whose wife was making eyes at who, who resented who's holding a better strip of land, who had a temper, who bore a grudge. Without being policing professionals, neighbours had a lot of what a police officer needs; ideas on motive, the personality of the suspect, his habitual movements. Most people did not wander more than a few miles from their home in their entire lives, going perhaps to a larger village or town to buy or sell things, but again generally within a day's walking distance. Strangers were rare, and were noticed.
Murder and manslaughter were more common, not least because less effective treatment of injuries and greater incidence of fatal infection would have led to death rates far higher than today, but I think Aelfgar strangling his wife in 1144 was no more likely to escape justice than Joe strangling his wife in 2014. Getting away with it was therefore not as easy as you would think.
The exception would be the random killing, or where the victim is not found until some time after the act. Kill someone with whom you have no known past contact, or hide a body, (and raise an alarm yourself if they are family members), and the odds of eluding justice increase, as long as you do not kill again, since with each crime more connections can be made, and there is greater likelihood of a mistake, some clue in thoughtless word, or physical evidence.
In these last scenarios it has become more difficult to get away with murder in the 21st century, because of modern scientific advances, and the technology with which we surround ourselves. Bury that corpse as deep as you like, but unless it is not found in the span of your lifetime, there is a good chance some microscopic evidence will give you away, and the paper trails of contacts are a web in which the unwary killer is caught.
So, in the end, it was easier to get away with murder in the 12th century, but not as easy as you would think and in 'my' 12th century world, what would limit the murderer's chances would be Bradecote & Catchpoll, looking at those murders where 'hue and cry' would be far too late, and seeking those still vital answers to 'Who, why, where, and how?' I hope you will enjoy how they do it.
— ♦ —
Sarah Hawkswood describes herself as a "wordsmith" who is only really happy when writing. She read Modern History at Oxford and her factual book on the Royal Marines in the First World War, From Trench and Turret, was published in 2006.
She takes her pen name from one of her eighteenth century ancestors who lived in Worcestershire, and selected it because the initials match those of her maiden name. She is married, with two grown up children, and now lives in Worcestershire.
For more information about the author, please visit her website at BradecoteAndCatchpoll.com or find her on Twitter.
— ♦ —
The Lord Bishop's Clerk
Sarah Hawkswood
A Bradecote and Catchpoll Investigation
