Speaker 1: You are listening to History on Trial, a production of
Speaker 1: iHeart Podcasts. Listener discretion advised. As he walked home on
Speaker 1: May thirteenth, eighteen fifty four, Nathaniel Lamb was presented with
Speaker 1: a vision of loveliness all around him. Spring was unfurling,
Speaker 1: Dormant plants poked their heads from the soil to greet
Speaker 1: the sun covering the world in green. Oregon winters can
Speaker 1: be dreary, but all those gray, rainy days pay off.
Speaker 1: Thirty four year old Nathaniel was returning from a hunt,
Speaker 1: accompanied by two friends and his eldest son, thirteen year
Speaker 1: old Abraham. They'd managed to get a bear, even split
Speaker 1: three ways. This was a good haul of meat, and
Speaker 1: Nathaniel had claimed one of the bear's paws too, as
Speaker 1: a trophy. The paw would add some character to his
Speaker 1: family's cabin, which, like most pioneer dwellings, was a barbones affair,
Speaker 1: but it was sturdy enough to have gotten the Lambs, Nathaniel,
Speaker 1: his wife Charity, and their six children through the last
Speaker 1: eighteen months since it arrived in the Oregon territory. Though
Speaker 1: with only two rooms, quarters likely felt tight, especially since
Speaker 1: the arrival of baby Presley. Reaching the cabin. Nathaniel unloaded
Speaker 1: his share of meat from the wagon and carried it
Speaker 1: into the back room, passing by Charity, who was cooking
Speaker 1: at the fireplace. The table was set for supper, so
Speaker 1: Nathaniel set the meat and the paw down and took
Speaker 1: his seat. His sixteen year old daughter mary Anne went
Speaker 1: to look at the bear paw, while her five younger brothers,
Speaker 1: who ranged in age from thirteen year old Abraham to
Speaker 1: baby Presley, sat down to eat. The perfect end to
Speaker 1: the perfect day, it seemed. The family snug inside their cabin,
Speaker 1: gathered around a warm meal as the sun sunk behind
Speaker 1: the Douglas Firs and big leaf maples, its last rays
Speaker 1: illuminating the Lamb's property, hundreds of acres of lush or
Speaker 1: wagon land that, after only three more years of occupancy
Speaker 1: and improvement, would belong to the Lamb family outright and
Speaker 1: secure their future on this new frontier of the United States.
Speaker 1: But that future would never come, because as Nathaniel Lamb
Speaker 1: bent over his supper, his wife Charity rose from her seat,
Speaker 1: grabbed an axe, and slammed it into the back of
Speaker 1: his head. Welcome to history on trial. I'm your host,
Speaker 1: Mira Hayward this week the Territory of Oregon v. Charity Lamb.
Speaker 1: To understand what happened that night in the Lamb cabin,
Speaker 1: we need to travel back nearly twenty years and three
Speaker 1: thousand miles to July fourteenth, eighteen thirty six, the day
Speaker 1: that eighteen year old Charity Robins married sixteen year old
Speaker 1: Nathaniel Lamb in Randolph County, North Carolina. Young marriages were
Speaker 1: not uncommon in Charity and Nathaniel's world. Their parents had
Speaker 1: all married in their teens. Nathaniel's mother, Susannah, was only
Speaker 1: thirteen when Nathaniel was born in eighteen twenty. Nathaniel was
Speaker 1: the first of eighteen children that Susannah would bear over
Speaker 1: the next twenty seven years, before divorcing her husband in
Speaker 1: eighteen fifty, blaming that he was an alcoholic who'd abandoned
Speaker 1: the family and spent all their money. Her mother in
Speaker 1: law's story might have served as a cautionary tale to
Speaker 1: Charity Lamb, but by the time Susannah filed for divorce,
Speaker 1: Charity and Nathaniel were long gone from North Carolina. Their
Speaker 1: first child, Mary Anne, had been born in North Carolina
Speaker 1: in eighteen thirty seven, a year after their marriage, but
Speaker 1: by eighteen forty, when their second child, Abraham arrived, the
Speaker 1: family had moved to Illinois. Their next three children, Thomas, William,
Speaker 1: and John, were all born even further west in Missouri,
Speaker 1: but even that frontier was not far enough for Nathaniel Lamb.
Speaker 1: Not long after the birth of the Lamb's fifth child, John,
Speaker 1: in eighteen fifty one, Nathaniel decided to take his family
Speaker 1: to the Oregon Territory. The Donation Land Claim Act of
Speaker 1: eighteen fifty allowed white married couples to claim three hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty acres of land in the territory free of charge,
Speaker 1: provided they arrived on the land before eighteen fifty four
Speaker 1: and lived on and worked the land for four years.
Speaker 1: The Lambs were some of the estimated three to four
Speaker 1: hundred thousand Americans who traveled the Oregon Trail between eighteen
Speaker 1: forty and eighteen sixty. It was an arduous, multi month
Speaker 1: journey of more than two thousand miles, requiring settlers to
Speaker 1: face a litany of dangers, from bad weather to wagon
Speaker 1: accidents to disease. As anyone who's played the Oregon Trail
Speaker 1: computer game nos dying from dysentery, all too easy. But
Speaker 1: for Charity Lamb, the dangers of the trail came from
Speaker 1: a more proximate source. Her husband, Nathaniel, had never been
Speaker 1: a kind husband nor a law abiding one. Later, Charity
Speaker 1: would recount how he'd stole and a horse and an
Speaker 1: ox while they lived in Missouri and threatened his family
Speaker 1: with death if they turned him in. Their son, Abraham,
Speaker 1: described his parents as frequently quarreling. Their daughter Mary Anne,
Speaker 1: said quote, my parents have quarreled all their lives. But
Speaker 1: things got worse as they headed west on the plains.
Speaker 1: Mary Anne Lamb later testified he threatened her, and she
Speaker 1: carried the gun all day ahead of the wagon train
Speaker 1: through fear he would kill her with it. Miraculously, all
Speaker 1: the Lamb survived the trail as far as we know.
Speaker 1: In the autumn of eighteen fifty two, the family arrived
Speaker 1: in Oregon and staked their claim. The land they chose
Speaker 1: was just north of the Clacamus River, southeast of present
Speaker 1: day Portland. Though remote, the land was lovely. Frank branch Riley,
Speaker 1: who later owned the plot, described it as quote a
Speaker 1: picturesque high mountain meadow with far flung breath taking panoramas
Speaker 1: of the valleys of the Clacamus River and Eagle Creek,
Speaker 1: an environment of scenic, loveliness and tranquility, and an improbable
Speaker 1: setting for a horrendous story of violent hate and assassination.
Speaker 1: Perhaps not so improbable for Charity Lamb. She later told
Speaker 1: the family's hired hand, Dwight Muzzy, that she quote did
Speaker 1: not like the land. It was very remote. The Lamb's
Speaker 1: nearest neighbors, the Smiths, were half a mile away. After that,
Speaker 1: there was no one for two miles in any direction.
Speaker 1: The nearest town, Oregon City, was nine miles away. Legal
Speaker 1: historian Ronald Lansing describes Charity as quote snared in a
Speaker 1: land far from friends, family, and familiar places, and Nathaniel's
Speaker 1: abuse was intensifying. Not long after their arrival, in the
Speaker 1: winter of eighteen fifty two, Charity fell ill and took
Speaker 1: to her bed. When Nathaniel commanded her to get up,
Speaker 1: she said she could not, so he picked up a
Speaker 1: stool and said he would move her by force. The
Speaker 1: next spring, he threw a hammer at her head, striking
Speaker 1: her in the forehead and leaving a scar. Charity was
Speaker 1: likely pregnant with the couple's sixth child, Presley at the time.
Speaker 1: After Presley's birth, Charity believed Nathaniel tried to poison her.
Speaker 1: Later that year, when Charity didn't help Nathaniel carry a
Speaker 1: log into the house, he punched her. When she fell
Speaker 1: into the snow. Stunned, he kicked her repeatedly. Their children
Speaker 1: witnessed all of this, but worse was still to come.
Speaker 1: Sometime in late eighteen fifty three or early eighteen fifty four,
Speaker 1: a man named Collins came into the Lamb's life. Little
Speaker 1: is known about Collins, including his first name, but his
Speaker 1: reputation apparently was concerning. According to the Oregon Statesman, in
Speaker 1: the summer of eighteen fifty three, Collins quote seduced a
Speaker 1: man's wife and a divorce was obtained. Now, Collins had
Speaker 1: his sights set on mary Anne Lamb, a round face
Speaker 1: sixteen year old with lustrous dark hair. Charity, perhaps hoping
Speaker 1: to get her daughter out of their violent home, supported
Speaker 1: Collins's suit. Nathaniel did not. Eventually, he threatened to kill
Speaker 1: Collins if the man kept showing up at their house.
Speaker 1: Later rumors and reports would claim that both Mary Anne
Speaker 1: and Charity were in love with Collins, but we have
Speaker 1: no evidence of this. The only thing we know is
Speaker 1: that in the spring of eighteen fifty four, mary Anne,
Speaker 1: with the help of her mother, tried to get back
Speaker 1: into contact with Collins. Charity wrote the letter on her
Speaker 1: daughter's behalf. Marianne then hid the letter in the front
Speaker 1: of her dress, waiting for a chance to mail it.
Speaker 1: But on Saturday May sixth, before she could get the
Speaker 1: letter off, her father discovered it. Nathaniel irrupted, furious at
Speaker 1: his wife and daughter's betrayal of his commands. You will
Speaker 1: not live at my expense longer than a week, he
Speaker 1: bellowed at Charity. He would kill her the next Saturday,
Speaker 1: he told her, and take their sons and leave. Nine
Speaker 1: year old Thomas Lamb later explained that it was only
Speaker 1: a matter of logistics that Nathaniel did not kill Charity
Speaker 1: and leave that very day. Quote he said he was
Speaker 1: going to take us boys along because he was not
Speaker 1: going to let her raise us, but that he was
Speaker 1: waiting for the cow to have a calf so that
Speaker 1: he could take the baby along and have milk for it.
Speaker 1: That is what he waited so long for. For the
Speaker 1: next week, Charity awoke each morning and wondered if it
Speaker 1: would be the day she would die. At one point,
Speaker 1: Nathaniel seemed to relent. He told her to leave if
Speaker 1: she wanted, But then he told her that if she left,
Speaker 1: he would follow her, and, in their thirteen year old
Speaker 1: son Abraham's words, quote settle her when she didn't know it.
Speaker 1: Nine year old Thomas put it more plainly. She said
Speaker 1: she didn't know what to do, for he was going
Speaker 1: to kill her, and if she ran off, he would
Speaker 1: follow her and kill her. Anyhow, Nathaniel toyed with Charity,
Speaker 1: pretending to change his mind once more and telling her
Speaker 1: to go. Charity snatched her bonnet and hurried out the door,
Speaker 1: but before she reached the gate, she heard her husband,
Speaker 1: I'll drop you before you get out of sight. Nathaniel
Speaker 1: said his rifle was aimed straight at her. Charity came
Speaker 1: back on Friday evening, with one day left in the week.
Speaker 1: Nathaniel had given Charity to live. Mary Anne and Thomas
Speaker 1: saw their father point his gun once more at their mother.
Speaker 1: When he saw that they were watching him, Nathaniel turned
Speaker 1: and shot his gun into a tree instead. The next morning,
Speaker 1: the thirteenth, before Nathaniel and Abraham left on the hunt,
Speaker 1: Abraham noticed that his mother appeared quote, tolerably uneasy. She
Speaker 1: pulled Abraham aside and told him that his father, quote,
Speaker 1: was going to kill her and mary Anne and take
Speaker 1: us boys and go to California. The family's hired hand,
Speaker 1: thirty four year old Dwight Muzzy, was working near the
Speaker 1: cabin that day and came in for breakfast and lunch.
Speaker 1: He said. Charity looked downcast and dejected. At lunch, she
Speaker 1: pulled Muzzy aside and said she had something to tell him,
Speaker 1: something that must be kept a secret. She believed Lamb
Speaker 1: was going to leave. She knew it because he was
Speaker 1: making preparations. He had sold his mare, and she knew
Speaker 1: he had got money for it. He was going to
Speaker 1: California and would take the boys with him. Muzzy said
Speaker 1: he hoped it wasn't true, but Charity insisted it was.
Speaker 1: You think you have a friend in Lamb, she told him,
Speaker 1: but you are very much deceived. Her husband was not
Speaker 1: a good man. She told Muzzy about all the times
Speaker 1: he had abused her, the hammer he'd thrown at her head,
Speaker 1: the time he'd tried to poison her, all the threats
Speaker 1: he'd made to her life. Now, Charity told Muzzy he
Speaker 1: was going to kill her and Mary Anne Dwight. Muzzy
Speaker 1: does not seem to have believed Charity Lamb. He never
Speaker 1: said so outright, but his actions reveal his ambivalence. After
Speaker 1: Charity poured out her fears to Muzzy, she asked if
Speaker 1: he would return to the cabin later that night. He
Speaker 1: said he would not. Charity pushed, but carefully, reminding Muzzy
Speaker 1: that she'd done his laundry. Wouldn't he need to come
Speaker 1: back for a clean shirt? I said not, Muzzy recalled,
Speaker 1: Then he left her alone. Several hours later, Nathaniel's hunting companions,
Speaker 1: William Cook and David Deardorf, dropped Nathaniel and Abraham off
Speaker 1: at the cabin, then continued on towards the Smith's house.
Speaker 1: After stopping for a few minutes to chat with Benjamin Smith,
Speaker 1: the two men set off again. They made it only
Speaker 1: a few hundred yards before they heard Benjamin Smith call
Speaker 1: them back. Abraham Lamb stood at Smith's side, panting he
Speaker 1: had just run there, carrying the news that his father
Speaker 1: was dead. Smith and Cook and Deardorf and Abraham ran
Speaker 1: back to the Lamb cabin, passing Charity and Mary Anne
Speaker 1: Lamb who were running in the opposite direction. When Charity
Speaker 1: saw Abraham, she paused and cried out to him take
Speaker 1: care of the baby. Then she ran off. At the Lambs,
Speaker 1: the men found Nathaniel sprawled outside, his head a bloody mess.
Speaker 1: As they bent down to pick him up, they drew
Speaker 1: back in shock. Nathaniel Lamb was still alive. Doctor Presley
Speaker 1: Welch was quickly summoned to the Lamb cabin. What he
Speaker 1: saw did not make him optimistic. The top of Nathaniel's
Speaker 1: skull was split by a five inch long gash that
Speaker 1: penetrated two inches into his brain. The bone was also
Speaker 1: damaged in the back of the skull. Even though Nathaniel
Speaker 1: was alive now, doctor Welch knew he would not remain
Speaker 1: that way for long. Having done all he could for
Speaker 1: the patient, doctor Welch set out towards the Smith's, the
Speaker 1: direction Charity had last been seen heading. He found Charity
Speaker 1: inside the Smith's cabin, sitting in a bed. She asked
Speaker 1: about her husband. Welch told her his wounds were mortal.
Speaker 1: Charity seemed surprised quote she said she did not mean
Speaker 1: to kill the critter. Welch recalled that she only intended
Speaker 1: to stun him until they could get away. Even despite
Speaker 1: Welch's report, Charity did not seem convince that her husband
Speaker 1: would die. When one of the Smith's sons returned home
Speaker 1: from the Lamb cabin, he found Charity smoking her pipe.
Speaker 1: Her first question for him was whether her husband would
Speaker 1: be able to come find her and kill her. The
Speaker 1: boy replied that he did not think so, and that
Speaker 1: Nathaniel would not live long. Charity asked the same question
Speaker 1: of everyone who came to the smith house that night,
Speaker 1: would her husband be able to come after her? After
Speaker 1: hearing over and over again that he would not, she
Speaker 1: finally went to sleep. The next morning, she told the
Speaker 1: Smiths that she needed to go home and feed her
Speaker 1: children breakfast. Nathaniel was still lying in the other room
Speaker 1: alive when she arrived, but she did not go in
Speaker 1: to see him. When told by doctor Welsh that Nathaniel
Speaker 1: wanted to see her, Charity quote refused to go in
Speaker 1: where he was, saying that he would certainly kill her.
Speaker 1: Only after repeated assurances from doctor Welch that Nathaniel was
Speaker 1: quote entirely helpless, did she agree. By now, infection was
Speaker 1: setting in Nathaniel was delirious and mumbling to himself. But
Speaker 1: when Charity said Nathaniel, I am here, he seemed to
Speaker 1: become lucid and asked her, yes, dear, I see you are,
Speaker 1: my dear. What did you kill me for? Charity began
Speaker 1: listing all the ways Nathaniel had abused her. He denied
Speaker 1: all of it. When doctor Welch later asked Charity why
Speaker 1: she had done it, she told him about her son Abraham, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: there is a boy thirteen years old who has never
Speaker 1: been inside of a schoolhouse or meeting house. I could
Speaker 1: not think of having my children raised by such a man.
Speaker 1: She described Nathaniel's criminal past and his violent actions. Doctor
Speaker 1: Welch told her that the law would probably come for her. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: Charity seemed surprised, but resigned, telling the doctor quote, the
Speaker 1: worst they could do would be to hang me, and
Speaker 1: I am willing to be hung in case he should die.
Speaker 1: Nathaniel did die six days later, on May twentieth, eighteen
Speaker 1: fifty four. By then, the story of the murder had
Speaker 1: hit the papers. The Oregonian, who smugly wrote that Missus
Speaker 1: lamb ought to be called Missus Tiger, claimed that quote
Speaker 1: the domestic peace of the family had been invaded by
Speaker 1: another man, and the husband had threatened an exposure of
Speaker 1: his faithless wife. Philip Foster, a prominent local citizen who
Speaker 1: was one of the first white settlers in Oregon, added
Speaker 1: fuel to the fire when he told the Oregon Statesman
Speaker 1: that Charity and Marianne had both been in love with
Speaker 1: Collins and had killed Nathaniel when he foiled their plans
Speaker 1: to run off with their lover. Foster, who had also
Speaker 1: occasionally employed Nathaniel, called his neighbor quote an industrious and
Speaker 1: quiet citizen. The Statesman concluded that Charity was a monster.
Speaker 1: Charity's trial was initially scheduled for July, but due to
Speaker 1: an issue with the grand jury, it was postponed until September.
Speaker 1: Until then, Charity would be kept in the Oregon City Penitentiary,
Speaker 1: where she was the only female prison While Charity sat
Speaker 1: in jail, the probate court decided what to do about
Speaker 1: the Lamb children and estate. Joseph Church, the local Justice
Speaker 1: of the Peace, had taken the Lamb children in temporarily
Speaker 1: after the attack. On May twenty seventh, Church filed a
Speaker 1: petition to be named administrator of Nathaniel Lamb's estate and
Speaker 1: guardian of his minor children. His petition was granted on
Speaker 1: June sixth, stripping Charity of her parental rights. Next, Church
Speaker 1: petitioned the court to allow him to sell the Lamb's
Speaker 1: personal property in order to pay back Nathaniel's creditors and
Speaker 1: his estate expenses. The probate court once again approved the petition,
Speaker 1: and Church sold all of the family's belongings and livestock.
Speaker 1: Even if Charity managed to escape conviction, she would return
Speaker 1: to an empty cabin, but not all hope was lost.
Speaker 1: The local court was treating offenders mercifully that summer. There
Speaker 1: was the arsonist accused of burning down a barn, who
Speaker 1: was convicted but deemed by Judge Cyrus only to be
Speaker 1: quote more an object of pity than resentment, and given
Speaker 1: the minimum sentence. There was the man who killed his
Speaker 1: neighbor's ox, who the grand jury declined to indict, believing
Speaker 1: him to be insane. And then there was mary Anne Lamb.
Speaker 1: The day after the attack, doctor Welch had asked Charity
Speaker 1: if mary Anne had known of her plans to kill Nathaniel.
Speaker 1: Charity replied that mary Anne quote was going to do
Speaker 1: it herself. But I told her I would do it.
Speaker 1: Mary Anne was subsequently indicted alongside Charity for Nathaniel's murder,
Speaker 1: but at her trial on July eleventh, the first felony
Speaker 1: trial of a woman in the Oregon Territory, the jury
Speaker 1: quickly found her not guilty because, per the Oregon Statesman quote,
Speaker 1: there was no evidence against her except the statements of
Speaker 1: her mother, which were ruled out by the court. Though
Speaker 1: a lack of evidence seems like a pretty good reason
Speaker 1: to acquit to me. Not everyone was happy with mary
Speaker 1: Anne's verdict. The Oregon Spectator wrote a scathing editorial on
Speaker 1: July fourteenth, accusing Jeff Udge Only and Noah Huber, the prosecutor,
Speaker 1: of taking it easy on mary Anne. If Cyrus Only
Speaker 1: as judge and Noah Huber as prosecuting attorney composed the
Speaker 1: head and tail of the September trial, the paper warned,
Speaker 1: the old woman will be cleared too. Others weren't so certain.
Speaker 1: A jury might be willing to look favorably on an
Speaker 1: arsonist or an alleged accomplice, but what about a killer.
Speaker 1: The opening of the Territory of Oregon v. Charity Lamb
Speaker 1: on September eleventh, eighteen fifty four proved the Spectator right
Speaker 1: on at least two counts. Judge Only and Prosecutor Huber
Speaker 1: were back. This was not really a surprise. The territory
Speaker 1: had only three judges, each of whom oversaw large districts.
Speaker 1: Cyrus only covered the district that included the Lamb's cabin.
Speaker 1: Thirty eight years old Only was known as a quote
Speaker 1: modest and unassuming gentleman. No Ya Huber's appearance was also
Speaker 1: not shocking. He was the district attorney, after all. Elected
Speaker 1: to the position earlier that summer. The thirty three year
Speaker 1: old had been criticized by the Spectator for not prosecuting
Speaker 1: Mary Ann Lamb aggressively enough. Huber would show no such
Speaker 1: hesitation with Charity Lamb. Judge Only had appointed James K.
Speaker 1: Kelly and Milton Elliott, the same lawyers who had defended
Speaker 1: the arsonist, the ox Killer, and Mary Ann, to represent Charity.
Speaker 1: Kelly and Elliott's successes that summer hadn't been Fluke's. Both
Speaker 1: men were experienced attorneys. Elliott had once been a prosecutor,
Speaker 1: while Kelly, who also served as a territorial legislator, had
Speaker 1: played such a major role in drafting the territory's eighteen
Speaker 1: fifty four Code of Laws that it was sometimes known
Speaker 1: as the Kelly Code. Kelly and Elliott began the trial
Speaker 1: by providing Charity's plea not guilty. At Elliott and Kelly's side,
Speaker 1: Charity sat listless, holding her infant side. Presley, The Weekly
Speaker 1: Oregonian wrote that she looked quote pale and sallow and
Speaker 1: emaciated as a skeleton, apparently fifty years of age, though
Speaker 1: probably a little younger. In reality, Charity was only thirty
Speaker 1: six years of hard work, child bearing, and poverty, not
Speaker 1: to mention the four months in jail had aged her.
Speaker 1: The conditions in the penitentiary could not have been good.
Speaker 1: The Oregonian further records that quote her clothing was thin
Speaker 1: and scanty, and much worn and torn, and far from clean. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the opening statements have been lost to time, but from
Speaker 1: the shape of Noah Huber's prosecution case, we can imagine
Speaker 1: what he might have said. Charity Lamb was a cold blooded,
Speaker 1: remorseless killer who had planned her crime. Hubert began by
Speaker 1: calling two doctors Forbes, Barkley and Presley Welch. Berkley had
Speaker 1: performed the post warnem examination of Nathaniel and described the
Speaker 1: man's wounds to the chair, saying that the deep slice
Speaker 1: through his skull and into his brain was quote necessarily fatal,
Speaker 1: while the secondary skull penetration was probably fatal in its
Speaker 1: own right. Doctor Welch, who had tended to Nathaniel after
Speaker 1: the attack, concurred with Berkeley. Hubert next introduced Nathaniel's hunting
Speaker 1: companions that day, who described saying goodbye to him and
Speaker 1: then coming back to find him dying. William Cook described
Speaker 1: the graphic scene at the cabin, quote, he lay in
Speaker 1: the front yard, bloody as a man could be. The
Speaker 1: table was standing and seats around it as if they
Speaker 1: had been eating supper. There was blood on a plate,
Speaker 1: on a chair, and on the floor, and from there
Speaker 1: out the door. Cook had also seen the murder weapon quote,
Speaker 1: a narrow bit chopping axe with blood and hair on it.
Speaker 1: There was little doubt that Charity was the one who
Speaker 1: had wielded this axe. Nathaniel himself had identified her as
Speaker 1: his killer, and Charity had openly admitted to her actions.
Speaker 1: According to cons See a canton Wine who had taken
Speaker 1: Charity to jail, Charity had told him that quote, she
Speaker 1: was sorry, She had not struck him a little harder
Speaker 1: and prevented his giving evidence against her. The prosecution argued
Speaker 1: that Charity's motive for killing Nathaniel was related to the
Speaker 1: mysterious Collins and Charity's anger at Nathaniel for not allowing
Speaker 1: Mary Anne to marry him. A neighbor, Joseph Jones, who
Speaker 1: spoke to Charity on the Monday following the attack, testified
Speaker 1: that Charity told him quote, she was afraid of Nathaniel
Speaker 1: on account of that letter she had tried to write
Speaker 1: for Maryanne to mister Collins, which was the reason she
Speaker 1: did it. That he had been mad at her ever
Speaker 1: since the letter, and she was afraid of him. Doctor
Speaker 1: Welch said that Nathaniel and Charity had discussed the letter
Speaker 1: while he lay dying, and that Nathaniel had admitted that
Speaker 1: if Collins had quote continued to cut up about my
Speaker 1: house as he had done, I would have shot him.
Speaker 1: Constable canton Wine had asked Charity about Collins, telling her
Speaker 1: he quote supposed that miserable Collins was the main cause
Speaker 1: of the diffyfficulty, to which Charity had replied unconvincingly that
Speaker 1: she quote knew nothing about him. Hubert also tried to
Speaker 1: preempt any defense claims of insanity. Philip Foster, Yes, the
Speaker 1: same neighbor who told newspapers that Charity was having an
Speaker 1: affair with Collins, testified that he had visited Charity while
Speaker 1: she was in jail. She appeared different. Foster said, she
Speaker 1: pretended not to know anything. I thought it feigned. At
Speaker 1: all other times she had appeared rational. Thank you, Philip Foster,
Speaker 1: Your completely unqualified opinion on insanity is noted. More concerning
Speaker 1: for an insanity defense was the testimony from the two doctors.
Speaker 1: Doctor Forbes Barkley, who had done Nathaniel's post mortem, had
Speaker 1: also treated Charity for unnamed issues while she was in jail.
Speaker 1: According to him, when he first visited her, she behaved strangely. Quote,
Speaker 1: she made no reply to my questions, appeared to take
Speaker 1: offense that I should talk to her, was very much excited,
Speaker 1: looked wild, appeared to have a slight fever. I thought
Speaker 1: she was pretending. She kept moving her feet and her
Speaker 1: hands to make a little noise. The jailer told her
Speaker 1: to be quiet, and she obeyed. I think she was sane.
Speaker 1: Doctor Welch concurred, saying, quote, I thought her a nice woman,
Speaker 1: but ignorant below mediocrity, but if she was insane, I
Speaker 1: did not perceive it. On cross examination, defense lawyers Milton
Speaker 1: Elliott and James Kelly tried to introduce some nuance to
Speaker 1: these men's claims. Was it possible for someone to be
Speaker 1: rational in most cases but insane in certain circumstances. Doctor
Speaker 1: Berkley admitted that it was, saying quote, A person may
Speaker 1: be insane on a particular subject as that there is
Speaker 1: some danger impending over him, and be sane in all
Speaker 1: other respects, but qualified his statement saying there would be
Speaker 1: premonitory symptoms and other means of detecting it. Doctor Welch
Speaker 1: acknowledged quote, I never thought about that. I thought it
Speaker 1: strange she could do such an act and be so
Speaker 1: indifferent to it. One may be insane on a particular
Speaker 1: subject and rational on all others. Insanity was the first
Speaker 1: prong of the defense's strategy. The second was self defense.
Speaker 1: Abuse had come up during the prosecution's case, such as
Speaker 1: when Constable canton Wine said Charity had told him of
Speaker 1: Nathaniel's cruelties to her and said she did it for
Speaker 1: fear of her life, that if she had not done it,
Speaker 1: he would have killed her, that she did it to
Speaker 1: save her life. Now, the defense introduced eyewitnesses to the
Speaker 1: abuse the Lamb children. The three eldest children, Mary Anne, Abraham,
Speaker 1: and Thomas, all testified to Nathaniel's cruelty, physical violence, and
Speaker 1: threats to their mother's life. They spoke of the hammer
Speaker 1: and the scar it left on Charity's forehead, of the
Speaker 1: stool Nathaniel had brandished at his sick wife of the
Speaker 1: time he had knocked her down and beaten her as
Speaker 1: she lay in the snow. Of how according to nine
Speaker 1: year old Thomas, he threatened the day before to kill her.
Speaker 1: He had threatened it before. Dwight Muzzy testified that Charity
Speaker 1: had told him of this abuse on the day of
Speaker 1: the attack, and doctor Welch recounted Charity's answer when he
Speaker 1: asked why she and Marianne hadn't simply run away while
Speaker 1: Nathaniel was out hunting. Quote, we might have, but we
Speaker 1: did not know where he was, and we might meet
Speaker 1: him and he would kill us. On September fourteenth, the
Speaker 1: defense rested and closing arguments began. Noah Huber's closing like
Speaker 1: his case, was to the point it is undeniable. He
Speaker 1: told the jury that the deceased received his death from
Speaker 1: blows on the head inflicted by her with an axe.
Speaker 1: The only question was whether that killing was murder. Huber
Speaker 1: said that it was. No provocation was given at the time,
Speaker 1: he argued, But on the contrary, the act was unprovoked, deliberate,
Speaker 1: and premeditated. As to the claim of insanity, Huber said
Speaker 1: that quote, the testimony of the physicians ought to settle
Speaker 1: that question. Milton Elliott delivered the first defense closing argument.
Speaker 1: He began by discussing the death penalty, which he believed
Speaker 1: was wrong. But even if one supported the death penalty,
Speaker 1: he continued, it could not be administered hastily. Our legislature
Speaker 1: has thrown around the life of the citizen a wall
Speaker 1: of protection, Elliott told jurors, which must be overcome in
Speaker 1: every prosecution for murder in the first degree. This wall
Speaker 1: of protection was the requirement of premeditation, and in this case,
Speaker 1: Elliot said, he had not quote discovered an item of
Speaker 1: evidence of such a previous design. Charity had acted impulsively
Speaker 1: out of fear. The only design that Elliot saw in
Speaker 1: this story was Nathaniel Lamb's plot to destroy his wife.
Speaker 1: Tyranny is odious and insufferable, Eliot said, but none so
Speaker 1: much as domestic tyranny, whose victims are weak and helpless.
Speaker 1: His threats and even attempts against her life show not
Speaker 1: fancied but real danger. This danger, Elliot believed, might have
Speaker 1: driven Charity to the point of temporary madness, and Quote,
Speaker 1: in the irregular and unguided action of a disordered intellect,
Speaker 1: without malice or an intelligent purpose, she struck the fatal blows.
Speaker 1: If the jurors had any doubt about the premeditation of
Speaker 1: the act, Elliott concluded, which he trusted they did, He
Speaker 1: urged them to find Charity not guilty of first degree murder.
Speaker 1: James Kelly's closing argument focused on insanity. Charity Lamb, Kelly said,
Speaker 1: may have been sane in all other aspects of her life,
Speaker 1: but when it came to her husband, her mind was irrational.
Speaker 1: She thought obsessively incessantly about how nath Daniel Lamb might
Speaker 1: kill her. It consumed her mind. On May thirteenth, she
Speaker 1: was convinced that Quote the very time had arrived when
Speaker 1: he was to terminate her life, and so unbalanced by
Speaker 1: fear and anxiety, Charity took action, but that action had
Speaker 1: not been murder. According to Kelly, no, Charity had only
Speaker 1: intended to his ass escape. Following Nathaniel's threats to follow
Speaker 1: and kill her if she left, Kelly said, quote, there
Speaker 1: was but one safety, and that was to disable him
Speaker 1: and prevent pursuit until she could reach a place of security.
Speaker 1: That the axe had buried deeper than Charity expected was
Speaker 1: due to the fact that she quote did not, in
Speaker 1: her terror and trepidation, judge accurately how to use the
Speaker 1: instrument and how hard to strike in order to stun
Speaker 1: without killing. As evidence of the theory, Kelly cited the
Speaker 1: conversation's Charity had had with people after the attack when
Speaker 1: she had believed that Nathaniel might still follow her. If
Speaker 1: she had planned to kill him, how could she still
Speaker 1: believe him alive? Kelly finished by echoing Elliott's arguments about premeditation.
Speaker 1: There was quote no such proof, no lying in wait,
Speaker 1: no preparing and arranging beforehand the means of death, no
Speaker 1: evidence whatever that murder was in her mind before the
Speaker 1: time of its execution. Thus, he concluded, quote, her life
Speaker 1: cannot be taken. Noah Huber gave a rebuttal argument but
Speaker 1: unfortunately the details have been lost. The Oregon Statesman writes, quote,
Speaker 1: the prosecution replied at length, but we have not been
Speaker 1: able to condense his argument within our limits. He combated
Speaker 1: the position taken on the other side and claimed a
Speaker 1: conviction of the highest degree classic strategy. With closing arguments finished,
Speaker 1: Judge Cyrus only instructed the jury focusing on self defense.
Speaker 1: He told the jurors that quote, it is claimed that
Speaker 1: she entertained the belief that the deceased was about to
Speaker 1: take her life. If the evidence convinces you that this
Speaker 1: belief existed in her mind and was the motive of
Speaker 1: the act, she must be acquitted. Though only acknowledged that
Speaker 1: the prosecution quote claimed this motive to have been insincere
Speaker 1: and a mere pretense to cover deliberate murder. He followed
Speaker 1: that up by arguing that quote, the evidence does not
Speaker 1: even tend to prove, much less establish any other motive
Speaker 1: for the act. That she has signed it at the
Speaker 1: time as her reason and has never deviated from it,
Speaker 1: That her actions have been uniformly consistent with that idea,
Speaker 1: that she manifested it not only to her family, but
Speaker 1: to Muzzy and even to the deceased upon his deathbed,
Speaker 1: that it reconciles all the evidence, clears up all mysteries,
Speaker 1: and places the whole case upon the only rational footing
Speaker 1: of which it is susceptible. The defense must have been
Speaker 1: cheering by the end of this statement. After then urging
Speaker 1: the jurors to make their own conclusions and providing them
Speaker 1: with a list of possible verdicts, he dismissed them. The
Speaker 1: jury was out for several hours before returning with a
Speaker 1: question for the judge the relevant statute in the Oregon
Speaker 1: Code of eighteen fifty four. The Code that James Kelly
Speaker 1: had helped craft, stated that homicide could be justified quote
Speaker 1: when committed in the lawful defense of such person, when
Speaker 1: there shall be a reasonable ground to apprehend a design
Speaker 1: to do some great personal injury, and there shall be
Speaker 1: imminent danger of such design being accomplished. The jurors wanted
Speaker 1: to know what imminent danger meant. Judge only explained that
Speaker 1: it meant danger. That quote appeared to be unavoidable if
Speaker 1: the prisoner believed the decease was then about to kill her,
Speaker 1: and that she could not flee without equal danger of
Speaker 1: being killed. The danger to her mind was imminent, but
Speaker 1: despite his evident sympathy for Charity, he clarified further, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: if she saw that danger before he returned home, it
Speaker 1: was her duty to have gone away and to have
Speaker 1: had measures taken to save her life without taking his.
Speaker 1: That would be the duty of a sane person. And
Speaker 1: if you think she was sufficiently possessed of her mental
Speaker 1: faculties to be under the guidance of reason, she was
Speaker 1: not justified in remaining, or at least not justified in
Speaker 1: killing until some demonstration was made against her. The jury
Speaker 1: left again, but returned only minutes later with a for
Speaker 1: the death of Nathaniel Lamb. The jury found Charity Lamb
Speaker 1: guilty of murder in the second degree, with a recommendation
Speaker 1: for mercy. The next morning, Charity appeared in front of
Speaker 1: Judge Only for sentencing. When Only asked her if she
Speaker 1: had anything she wished to say, Charity defended herself, saying, quote,
Speaker 1: I knew he was going to kill me. The jury
Speaker 1: think you ought to have gone away in his absence,
Speaker 1: The judge replied, Well, Charity said, he told me not
Speaker 1: to go, and then if I went, he would follow
Speaker 1: me and find me somewhere, and he was a mighty
Speaker 1: good shot. He once gave me a chance to go,
Speaker 1: and I consented. I even gave up my baby and started.
Speaker 1: He told me to come back or he would drop
Speaker 1: me in my tracks, and I had to come back.
Speaker 1: He threatened me very often. It had come to be
Speaker 1: a common thing. I did it to save my life.
Speaker 1: Judge only acknowledged her situation and told her that the
Speaker 1: jury had recommended mercy in sentencing, but he continued, quote,
Speaker 1: the law gives the court no discretion. The mandatory sentence
Speaker 1: for second degree murder was life with hard labor. At this,
Speaker 1: the Oregonian Records quote missus Lamb commenced weeping and her
Speaker 1: babe crying as the officer removed her from the bar.
Speaker 1: Two days later, Charity was delivered to the penitentiary in Portland. Again,
Speaker 1: she would be the only female prisoner. The male prisoners
Speaker 1: did construction and manufacturing jobs. Charity's assignment was doing their
Speaker 1: laundry and the laundry of the warden and his family.
Speaker 1: The next record we have of Charity comes in eighteen
Speaker 1: fifty nine, when two visiting Quaker missionaries encountered her. When
Speaker 1: the missionaries quote extended words of encouragement Charity responded that
Speaker 1: she had quote not done anything wrong. She was not
Speaker 1: the only one to think so. In the summer of
Speaker 1: eighteen sixty the Portland Advertiser newspaper advocated for Charity's pardon
Speaker 1: and release, but this campaign went nowhere. Though the jury
Speaker 1: in her case had recommended mercy, and though Judge Oulney
Speaker 1: had told her that their recommendation would quote be put
Speaker 1: upon record and preserved for any future use that may
Speaker 1: be found to be proper, no mercy was worthcoming. Even
Speaker 1: if Charity had been pardoned, she would have come back
Speaker 1: to nothing. All her children were now in the custody
Speaker 1: of other families. In eighteen fifty nine, Joseph Church, the
Speaker 1: Justice of the Peace, who had already auctioned off most
Speaker 1: of the Lamb's belongings, had also sold the Lamb's land.
Speaker 1: To proceed with the sale of this land, which legally
Speaker 1: was owned by Charity and her children, Church claimed that
Speaker 1: he was Charity and her children's guardian, ignoring the fact
Speaker 1: that Church had never been Charity's guardian and that Mary
Speaker 1: Anne Lamb was not a miner probate. Judge Robert Caulfield
Speaker 1: allowed this On Christmas Eve, eighteen fifty nine, the Lamb's
Speaker 1: three hundred and twenty acres sold for one hundred and
Speaker 1: ninety five dollars, less than half It's a praise value.
Speaker 1: Charity's land and her family were gone. In December eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty two, Charity, now the longest tenured prisoner at the penitentiary,
Speaker 1: was transferred to the Hawthorne Asylum later called the Oregon
Speaker 1: Hospital for the Insane. In eighteen sixty five, asylum investigators
Speaker 1: described seeing her quote knitting as the visiting party went
Speaker 1: through the hall, face imperturbably fixed in half, smiling contentment,
Speaker 1: apparently as satisfied with her lot as the happiest of
Speaker 1: sane people with theirs. The inspectors do not seem to
Speaker 1: have spoken to her before forming this generous conclusion. Fourteen
Speaker 1: years later, in September eighteen seventy nine, Charity Lamb, aged
Speaker 1: sixty one, died of apoplexy, probably a stroke in the asylum.
Speaker 1: Is likely buried in an unmarked grave in Portland's loan
Speaker 1: For Cemetery. Today, nearly two centuries later, the legal system
Speaker 1: still wrestles with many of the issues that arose at
Speaker 1: Charity Lamb's trial for a battered woman who kills in
Speaker 1: non confrontational circumstances, writes law professor Joan H. Kraus, the
Speaker 1: chief obstacles to proving self defense are the requirements that
Speaker 1: she reasonably believed the threatened harm to be imminent, as
Speaker 1: the killing occurs in the absence of any ongoing physical attack.
Speaker 1: In the Lamb trial, the jurors seemed sympathetic to the
Speaker 1: idea that Charity feared for her life, but they could
Speaker 1: not get past the timing of the attack. Was danger
Speaker 1: really imminent? While Nathaniel Lamb ate his dinner. When they
Speaker 1: asked Judge only to clarify, he told them that Charity
Speaker 1: was quote not justified in killing until some demonstration was
Speaker 1: made against her. As Ronald Lansing writes, quote, the instruction
Speaker 1: was a correct statement of common law, as for set
Speaker 1: down by judges and as codified by Oregon's territorial legislators.
Speaker 1: To kill in response to threat of distant harm, no
Speaker 1: matter how probable the threat, and no matter how useless
Speaker 1: the protective alternatives, was not self defense. But he continues, quote,
Speaker 1: what if the threat of future harm is certain, an
Speaker 1: escape is hopeless. Trapped by matrimony, parentage, vast wilderness, and culture.
Speaker 1: What was Charity to do? Understanding the situation of defendants
Speaker 1: who have killed their abusers in non confrontational situations, writes
Speaker 1: legal scholar Marina Angel, requires a quote reinterpretation of time,
Speaker 1: equal force and the duty to retreat in light of
Speaker 1: the realities of abuse. At Charity Lamb's trial, the only
Speaker 1: witnesses who tried to depict the reality's Charity faced were
Speaker 1: her children. When Charity herself got a chance to explain
Speaker 1: her fears, it was too late. The jury had already
Speaker 1: pronounced herself butons. In nineteen eighty five, a North Carolina
Speaker 1: woman named Judy Laws Norman, after enduring twenty years of
Speaker 1: relentless physical violence and psychological torture at the hands of
Speaker 1: her husband J. T. Norman, shot him in the head
Speaker 1: while he slept. State v. Norman is one of the
Speaker 1: most frequently debated cases involving self defense and intimate partner violence.
Speaker 1: There are a number of parallels between Judy Norman and
Speaker 1: Charity Lamb. In both cases, the abuse the women suffered
Speaker 1: escalated in the days before the killing. Both women's partners
Speaker 1: threatened to kill them. On the day in question, both
Speaker 1: women attempted to leave, but were stopped by threats of
Speaker 1: violence and concern over leaving their children. In both cases,
Speaker 1: the legal system rejected the women's claims of self defense.
Speaker 1: The jurors in Charity's case did not believe she met
Speaker 1: the requirement for imminent danger, while the judge in Judy's
Speaker 1: case did not allow her jury to consider self defense,
Speaker 1: and both women were convicted, Charity of second degree murder
Speaker 1: and Judy of manslaughter. But here their stories diverged. Judy
Speaker 1: Norman appealed her case. Ultimately, however, the North Carolina Supreme
Speaker 1: Court affirmed her conviction, but in nineteen eighty nine, Judy's
Speaker 1: defense attorneys circulated a petition for clemency in her home county.
Speaker 1: Thousands of people signed that July, Governor James Martin commuted
Speaker 1: her sentence to time served. Judy Norman was free. In
Speaker 1: an interview after her release, Judy said that she knew
Speaker 1: killing was wrong, but that people needed to quote understand
Speaker 1: the situation. Then she said that she hoped to help
Speaker 1: other women avoid that situation. Despite our focus this week
Speaker 1: on women who have killed their abusers, these cases are
Speaker 1: relatively rare. Far more often the reverse is true. But
Speaker 1: for both parties, intimate partner violence can be deadly. A
Speaker 1: two thousand and three study by Jacqueline Campbell at al.
Speaker 1: Found that quote the majority sixty seven to eighty percent
Speaker 1: of intimate partner homicides in heterosexual relationships involve physical abuse
Speaker 1: of the female by the male before the murder, no
Speaker 1: matter which partner is killed. Therefore, the study continues, quote,
Speaker 1: one of the major ways to decrease intimate partner homicide
Speaker 1: is to identify and intervene with battered women at risk, or,
Speaker 1: as Judy Norman put it, help women avoid the situation.
Speaker 1: In nineteen seventy eight, Laurel Paulson wrote an account of
Speaker 1: Charity's life and trial for frying Pan Magazine, which she
Speaker 1: ended with a rallying cry to action, quote, there can
Speaker 1: be no free charity, Lamb Committee, it's too late. Charity
Speaker 1: has been in her grave for almost a century. But
Speaker 1: there are other charity lambs. It's not too late to
Speaker 1: do something for them. Thank you for listening to History
Speaker 1: on Try. To see images of the people and places
Speaker 1: in this episode, check out our instagram at History on Trial.
Speaker 1: My main sources for this episode were Ronald B. Lansing's
Speaker 1: article The Tragedy of Charity Lamb, Oregon's first convicted murderess,
Speaker 1: newspaper coverage of the case, and the Oregon Historical Societies
Speaker 1: project the Oregon Encyclopedia. Special thanks to the Oregon Historical
Speaker 1: Society's executive Director, Carrie Timchuck, who first brought Charity's story
Speaker 1: to my attention, and to the Historical Society's Reference Services
Speaker 1: Manager Scott Daniels, who led me through the archives for
Speaker 1: a phobibliography as well as a transcript of this episode
Speaker 1: with citations. Please visit our website History on Trial podcast
Speaker 1: dot com, where you can also subscribe to our newsletter.
Speaker 1: History on Trial is written and hosted by me Mira Hayward.
Speaker 1: The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with
Speaker 1: supervising producer Trevor Yung and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams,
Speaker 1: Matt Frederick, and Hayward. Learn more about the show at
Speaker 1: History on Trial podcast dot com and follow us on
Speaker 1: Instagram at History on Trial and on Twitter at Underscore
Speaker 1: History on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by visiting
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.