Daniel Mendoza

Daniel Mendoza was one of the pioneers of Boxing. 

Daniel Mendoza, the ‘Star of the East’, led one of those lives that sounds like something straight off of a Hollywood script. A half English, half Spanish Jewish kid, from the mean streets of Bethnal Green, East London, who spent a large part of his adult life on the run, trying to avoid sentences in debtors prisons, and yet rubbed shoulders with the nobility and royalty of England, becoming the first Jew to meet King George IV. 

Mendoza continuously relied on the generosity of his contacts and network of influential friends to keep him out of trouble, which is evident when he states in his memoirs after a short spell in a Carlisle prison, where he would have languished ‘Had it not been for the seasoned relief afforded me by the Union and Harmony lodges of freemasons, of whom I had been of many years a member’ 

While living at NO. 3, Paradise Row (which bears a blue plaque on it today), at only the age of 24, Mendoza wrote the first training manual on Boxing ‘Observations on the Art of Pugilism,’ and would be the first fighter to ever write their memoirs. Without doubt, Daniel Mendoza is one of the most fascinating fighters in the history of Boxing. 

In his memoirs, Mendoza tells a hilarious anecdote about Lord Camelford. Camelford was as mad as a hatter and ‘whose impetuosity of temper’ was well known to his peers, a trait which eventually led to his death. One afternoon, while hosting Mendoza at his residence, Lord Camelford decided that he and Mendoza should spar. Mendoza, believing it rude, and also dangerous to refuse, agreed and describes Camelford as having ‘an original attitude of his own.’ Camelford insisted that Mendoza not take it easy, and do his upmost to strike him. Mendoza obliged, and hit Camelford so hard that his head was sliced open after crashing through a glazed door of a bookcase, which ‘irritated him greatly.’ Camelford next insisted that the two try a bout with the single-stick, but again Mendoza’s skill of movement and timing saw Camelford receive a ‘violent blow over the ear.’ Battered and bloodied, but undeterred, Lord Camelford reached for two fencing sabres, but after one was broken, suggested that they be exchanged for short swords insisting that if both men ‘took proper care’ then they could ‘not possibly injure each other.’ Mendoza vehemently refused, after all, his body was his livelihood. Camelford’s violent rage reared its ugly head and Mendoza had no option but to agree. But first, he insisted that if anything should happen to him, Lord Camelford should take care of his family. Camelford dually agreed, and marched off to fetch the blades.  

This was the final straw for Mendoza, out of either fear for his own or the Lord’s safety, he decided to ‘as soon as the coast was clear,’ make a bolt for it. In his haste to escape and ‘with all the rapidity’ in his power, Mendoza ran down the stairs all the way to the cellar, passing the landing leading to the front door. Realising his mistake, Mendoza had no option but to backtrack upstairs and flew through the front door and ‘never felt the least inclination to re-enter it.’ 

Born close to my neck of the woods in Aldgate, East London, on 5th July 1764, Mendoza, despite standing only 5’7” and weighting 160lbs, was the most skilful boxer since Jack Broughton. He was by far the best of the ‘Jewish School’, the little, big men of the London prize-ring, which featured fighters such as Isaac Bitton and Barney Aaron. The Jewish School also featured Samuel Elias, aka ‘Dutch Sam’. Dutch Sam is recorded as using the upper-cut for the first time in a fight against Caleb Baldwin on the 7 August, 1804. During the 20th round, Caleb was dead on his feet and time-and-again held his man. Sam, determined to end the fight ‘by a peculiar mode struck his blows upwards, which told dreadfully in Caleb’s face.’ It was noted in Pugilistica that ‘This is the first distinct notice we find of administering the ”upper-cut;” the most effectively blow in a rally, most difficult to guard against, yet so generally missed by the less-skilled boxer.’  

Mendoza introduced new scientific movements to boxing and switched effortlessly between orthodox and southpaw stances. As he wrote in his training manual: ‘The first principle in boxing, to be established, is to be perfectly master of the equilibrium of the body, so as to be able to change from a right to a left handed position, to advance or retreat, striking or parrying; and to throw the body either backward or forward, without difficulty or embarrassment.’

With his exotic looks and long locks, coupled with his cocky, confident strut, Mendoza looked every part the superstar. Billing himself as the ‘Fighting Jew’, in a time when Jews were viewed with a large amount of suspicion and anti-Semitism was rife amongst London’s populace, Mendoza certainly didn’t shy away from controversy. He would have a meteoric rise and the inevitable fall, ending his life at the age of 72, leaving a wife and 12 children in abject poverty. The actor Peter Sellers, of Pink Panther fame, was a direct descendent of Mendoza’s, and if you look carefully you can see a portrait of the great fighter in the background of the classic films.

Daniel Mendoza vs Richard Humphries

Mendoza’s famous series of fights, the first in Boxing history, were actually against another scientifically gifted fighter, whose reputation has become over shadowed by that of Mendoza’s. Richard ‘The Gentleman Boxer’ Humphries had originally been a good friend of Mendoza’s, and had even mentored and nurtured the young fighter before the men fell out in the Cock Inn, in Epping, seemingly over Humphries behaviour after a few too many ales. The dispute saw the beginning of a series of fight between the two, which pitted master against apprentice. Humphries, perhaps unsurprisingly, having had Mendoza under his tutelage, took the opening contest. Mendoza explains that the two had agreed prior to the contest that there would only be 30 seconds (as Broughton’s rules dictated) between rounds. Mendoza claims that his opponent being ‘near to exhaustion’ complained about the tightness of his shoes and insisted on changing his socks, running over the allocated time-limit. Despite this, Mendoza agreed to continue and as he was about to land, in his opinion, a decisive blow Humphries second caught the punch. A dispute broke out amongst those gathered, but Mendoza’s umpire Captain Brown, who he allegedly later discovered had money on Humphries to win, encouraged Mendoza to forget the intrusion and continue the fight. Mendoza now ‘highly gratified with the idea of surmounting every difficulty, and thereby gaining greater honour’ soldiered on and while attempting to throw his adversary, who held on to the surrounding wooden rail, found himself off balance and himself planted hard into the boards of the stage. Despite carrying on for two further rounds, Mendoza, still feeling the effects of the fall, eventually conceded defeat. The contest had lasted forty-seven minutes. 

Inaccurate stories of the nature of the defeat began to be widely circulated, and Mendoza did his upmost to set the record straight. A war of words in the press ensued between the two and a re-match was imminent. The second fight was again to be marred in controversy. 

Mr. Thornton’s Park, Stilton, Hunts, was chosen for the return on May 6th, 1789. A specifically constructed ‘building was erected, enclosing a space of forty-eight feet in diameter’ which was more than capable of holding 3,000 excited and rowdy spectators. Those seated at the very back had the best view, as it was said that their seats stood 18 feet off of the ground. 

The contest itself came to a premature end, when it was suggested by Mendoza’s seconds that Humphries had gone down without receiving a blow (a common occurrence later in the Victorian period, when boxing again would enter an era of cheating and fixed matches and fighters betting against themselves to lose and taking dives), cries of ‘Foul!’ were screamed and according to the Articles of Agreement, Humphries was declared the loser by Mendoza’s supporters. Humphries’ corner remonstrated and a violent scuffle broke out between the two sides. Eventually, decorum prevailed and Humphries taunted and berated Mendoza so much so that Mendoza agreed to continue. Two rounds later, with Mendoza unloading shot after shot on his man, Humphries saw the end was near and fell to the floor without a blow being landed. This time there was no doubt about the decision and Mendoza was declared the winner. Humphries ‘by no means satisfied by the Jews superiority’ ordered a rematch.   

The third and final contest was, in today’s terms, the rubber fight. Both men had beat the other once, and this final fight would settle the dispute forever. At Doncaster, September 29th, 1790, the final fight between Humphries and Mendoza would be forever ‘memorable in the annuals of pugilism.’ The location for the fight was a yard of an inn, which was ideal, seeing as a watering hole was where the historical quarrel had started. Over 500 tickets had been sold for half a guinea each. 

At 10:30am Humphries appeared in front of the expectant crowd, and sprang onto the 4 foot high, 24 foot squared wooden platform, eagerly stripping down to his waist and tied his colours (fighters wore a coloured handkerchief into the ring) to his corners ring post, as was the custom. Mendoza followed quickly after, determined to get the contest started. Mendoza appeared ‘devoid of apprehension’ and it may have been for this reason that he was deemed the clear favourite at 5 to 4, odds on. 

Round 1

The beginning of the fight started at a frenetic pace, with both men standing toe-to-toe, like two Man o’ War, broad siding one another and bombarding each other with their cannons. Eventually, the two clenched and struggled for domination, but both fell in their attempts to throw one another. 

Round 2

The second round began at the same pace as the first, with neither man giving the other an inch. Humphries undoubtedly had the best of the action and delivered the most blows, playing a merry tune upon Mendoza’s ribs like his body was a vibraphone.  

Round 3

The severity and pace of the first two rounds meant that the fighters started the third with a more cautious approach. Very few shots were exchanged but, of those that were, Mendoza had the best of them, eventually landing a shot that rocked Humphries’s equilibrium and sent him sprawling.  

Rounds 4 & 5

The fourth round was comparatively quiet to the previous three, but in the fifth Humphries continued his assault on Mendoza’s body aiming ‘a severe blow’ at his opposite number’s abdomen. Mendoza stopped the shot and returned the favour to Humphries’ head, caught off balance by the glancing blow Humphries hit the deck while attempting to counter his antagonist. 

In the rounds that followed Humphries continuously went to ground, sometimes as the result of pressure from Mendoza’s onslaught, often when no hits had been landed at all. Under the Articles of Agreement, Humphries should have been disqualified, but his reputation as a fair and well mannered gentleman ‘placed him above the suspicion of cowardice’ and saw his misdemeanours go unpunished. Humphries, ignoring the pleas of his friends, bloodied and confused, continued to fight ‘with great resolution’ despite having one eye completely shut by the punishment dealt out at the hands of Mendoza, a ‘display of excellent bottom’ 

Eventually the end came and Humphries had no choice but to concede the bout. The fight had been brutal and had taken a heavy toll on both men. Humphries had a deep gash ‘as clear as a razor’ running down one side of his nose that stretched all the way to his lip which had been split. A victorious Mendoza fared no better, his face was a bloody mess ‘his left eye and ear being much mutilated.’ Both were bleeding from the body and could barely stand up straight. Humphries had shown a massive amount of courage, and was carried through the cheering crowd on his friend’s shoulders. Mendoza’s cousin, Aaron Mendoza was on the same bill fighting against a West Country native by the name of Packer. The fight ‘was a most severe contest; they fought for an hour with the greatest violence.’ Aaron Mendoza was eventually beaten when he was thrown against the wooded railing. The crowd loved it, but Daniel Mendoza was inconspicuous by his absence, choosing instead to take a stroll ‘on the race-ground on the Town Moor.’ 

Having put the whole Humphries episode to bed, Mendoza decided to make some extra cash by touring Ireland, beating anything that the country could offer. The next great name of note to fight Mendoza was Bill Warr, a legend in the fight game and hero to many a younger fighter at the time. Warr, is famous for taking the first scientific approach to training, and heavily influenced Captain Barclay, who would later train Tom Cribb who would become arguably the world’s first heavy-weight champion. It was said that when Warr died, the great Bristolian fighter, Henry Pearce, tried to throw himself into Warr’s grave. Despite his revolutionary training routines, Warr was no match for the skill of Mendoza and suffered a heavy defeat. 

In April 1795, Mendoza lost to ‘Gentleman’ John Jackson. Despite challenges and responses being sent between Mendoza and Jackson via popular sporting papers, ‘The Oracle’ and the ‘Daily Advertiser, no rematch would take place. Jackson was an extremely intelligent individual who had no desire to stay in the fight game. Once he had beaten Mendoza, and was recognised Champion of all England, Jackson opened a boxing academy catering to the rich & famous. 

With Jackson refusing to take the bait, Mendoza settled in to semi-retirement, only taking on, and defeating, Harry Lee, in a fight that lasted an hour and ten minutes, in order to settle more debts, in 1806.This should have been the last Mendoza had seen of the prize-ring, but like many a boxer since, the roar and admiration of the crowd was hard to replace, especially compared to a life standing behind a bar. Mendoza would tie his colours to the post one last time against a man six years his junior, Tom Owen. Mendoza hadn’t entered the ring for fourteen years.

Daniel Mendoza vs Tom Owen

Tom Owen was born on the 21st December 1768. His most notable achievement is the fact that he is accredited with the invention of the Dumbbell. Owen was a decent fighter despite the claim by Pierce Egan (author of Boxiana) who described him as: “a mere tyro of the fist, and one completely ignorant of the rules of the art”. Being the great matchmaker that he was Owen put forward a proposition to the aged legend Daniel Mendoza, declaring it “a passage at arms”, in order to put an end to an ongoing dispute amongst the two that had been simmering away for years. Mendoza both for the need of money and the adulation of the masses, which he had missed since retirement, had gladly accepted the challenge. Owen had even managed to convince the national boxing hero Tom Cribb to man his corner. 

The pitiful display of the two over the hill pugilists lasted only fifteen minutes. Mendoza’s scientific skills had deserted him and he was all but a mere shadow of his former self. Understandable when we consider that it was a day before is 56th birthday and 33 years since his debut. He was continually knocked down and eventually declared himself unable to continue. 

Cribb, along with Owen’s best student Josh ‘The John Bull Fighter’ Hudson, carried Owen, who had not been inflicted with a single scratch, out of the ring to the sounds of a cheering crowd. Mendoza’s blue silk bird’s eye colours were hung triumphantly around Owens’s neck like a fabric medal as he entered the ring one last time to wrap himself in the noise of those who had gathered to see the sad debacle. 

In typical fashion, “Gentleman” John Jackson collected £20 on the spot for Mendoza and whispered words of encouragement to his former opponent as he pressed the money into the old champion’s palm and helped him into a waiting carriage.

Mendoza had ruled the ring and taken boxing technique to new heights, he had ‘trod most immediately in the steps of Broughton’ and taken boxing into a new age of glitz and glamour. On the 3rd September,1836, the light eventually went out on a life that had been spent on the edge, both literally and figuratively.

The Same Thing

The leading atheists are very out of touch with religion, with politics, with economics and with all the other factors that lead to radicalisation. I'd say they're about 20 years out. I don't think they are necessarily racist, xenophobic or anything else I just think they are to arrogant or lazy to listen, to try to understand what is going on and to see the wider picture. I'm an atheist too. In fact, I'm an apostate of Islam. I stopped believing in Allah years ago but yet I'm not a fan of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. In fact, I dislike them and their blatant bigotry. Why?

Because I don't look for scapegoats and that's all that atheists like Dawkins and Harris do. They blame religion for social evils in the same way that other people blame heavy metal music, computer games, pornography, etc. It's all rubbish because here's the thing - people don't interpret the same things the same way. Millions of different people around the world can and do interpret the same books, the same movies, the same words differently.

There are Christians who do not believe in heaven or hell. There are Muslims who do not pray five times a day. And there are atheists who possess the same sort of irrational fundamentalist mindset that they hypocritically criticise others for. How so? Because, like the religious fundamentalists, these irreligious fundamentalists believe that there is only one correct way to interpret religions like Islam or Christianity.

The quote by Sam Harris indicates as much - "Those who adhere most strictly to the actual teachings of Islam". Well, who are we to tell a Muslim who does not believe that women are inferior that such is the "actual teaching" of Islam? Who are we tell a Christian who does not believe that sodomy is evil that such is the "actual teaching" of Christianity? Every single time an atheist quotes passages from the Bible or the Quran to demonstrate how wrong or evil those religions are, they are doing the same thing, declaring to the world at large that there can be only one way to interpret those passages and that ways happens to be their way.

When someone kills another, it is never religion, politics, music, computer games, pornography or anything else that is to blame. It's that individual person him or herself alone that should be blamed. If that person has been driven by something else, it is that person's interpretation of that something else that should be blamed. It is never accurate to say that a person has killed another because of their religion or their politics. A person has killed another because of their interpretation of their religion or their interpretation of their politics. There is no reason why other people who believe in the same religion or politics but do not share that interpretation should be blamed as well. Stop looking for scapegoats and easy targets.

Despite being an atheist, I don't hate religion because I don't think religion is necessarily bad or evil. Like any other thing out there in this world, it can be used for both positive and negative purposes. But it's not just religion. Look at political ideologies. Secular works like Das Kapital or the US Constitution have been interpreted in a multitude of different ways, just like the Bible or the Quran. Different people have different ideas of what the "right to bear arms" or the "right to free speech" means, just as different people have different ideas of what the Bible or the Quran says. There is a passage in the Quran that can be interpreted to mean that apostates like myself should be killed but I know for a fact that not every Muslim interprets that passage in that way because I'm an apostate and - surprise, I have not been killed. My Muslim family accepts my lack of faith. They do not condemn me. They do not belittle me. They do not even nag at me. They simply accept it because they are good people.

Of course, I have my own interpretation of what "good people" means. Being tolerant and accepting of those that are different is my idea of "good people". There are Muslims who support gay marriage, believe it or not. There are even Muslims who are gay themselves, believe it or not. I know from my own life and my own eyes that there are good Muslims in this world who are tolerant and accepting of those that are different to them. And unfortunately, I also know that there are atheists who are not tolerant or accepting of those that are different to them. Atheists who would paint every religious believer with the same negative brush. Fundamentalist atheists who would condemn all non-atheists in the same way that fundamentalist believers would condemn all non-believers. Atheists like Dawkins, Harris and all their zealots that would rush to defend them.

Anti-theists

I grew up and continue to live in a consumerist capitalist society in which most people, when asked in a census or similar research, claim to have religious belief. Most religious writings I have read from all sorts of religions seem to push the idea that enough is plenty, avarice is bad and any true meaning to life comes not from the acquisition of material wealth but from contemplation and compassion. Not bad as a starting point. However, hypocrisy seems too small a word to describe the situation in most of the western developed world.

Why don’t religious leaders really tell it like it is, tell their followers that they really shouldn’t be chasing after that new car, telly, phone etc. because it won’t bring them lasting happiness. Why don’t passers by give to beggars rather than criticising them for being scrounging drunks if the majority of people claim some kind of religious belief?

I have come to find that Anti-theists are those who are sick and tired of watching "faith" axiomatically trump every argument for its mere "virtues" they are also sick and tired of hearing stories about the stoning and persecution of homosexuals and "undesirables" by the followers of a 1st century theology, the murder of people for blasphemy, the ritual mutilation of male and female children, the conflation of sadomasochism to a virtue through a love and fear relationship and to the daily lying to children about the material universe and the evolutionary process. Absolutely disgusted with the contempt all religions hold for women, unbelievers and those who would challenge it and its suborning of the most torturous vile murder and campaigns of genocide throughout our species history and some which continue through to this day.

Now in this modern century it asks us to forget what it has done and tolerate like the good people it claims only it can make through the fear of a tyrannical god and his moral precepts. I can't unknow what the Church and the Caliphs and Mullah's used to do and still do with its martyrdom and "honor" morality where the killing and throwing of acid is tacitly understood along with the murder of apostates and where the death of millions of Africans and others is still being actively implicated through the teaching's of the Vatican. A day will come when religions will have to apologize for what they are doing today. The unbelievers and "heretics" who had to watch as their societies turned into superstitious bloodbaths for a vile idea of perfection.

"Silent Majority" Of Muslims?

At the very core of Islam there are the concepts of martyrdom and jihad. In Sunni Islam many view Jihad as the sixth pillar of Islam (although unofficially). In Twelver Shia Islam, Jihad is explicitly defined as one of ten ancillaries of the faith.

Most people are familiar with the concept of "lesser jihad" i.e. the physical "holy war" against the enemies of Islam. Other problems include followers’ believing that the Quran is the verbatim word of God and combined with the hadiths there are numerous abhorrent explicit references to how homosexuals and Jews are to be systematically slaughtered.

Many liberals who perpetuate the argument that Islamist conflicts/jihads are geo-political causes (Mehdi Hasan) and not the result (or to some degree) of religious inspiration are blindly ignorant to the unequivocal facts. Continually two arguments (that are 100% true) are offered to deflect criticism of Islam:

Terrorism - the numbers game; "It's a small minority committing acts of terror" - Islam has 1.5 billion followers, a minority of this could still be a significant number-how many of the majority support the actions of the minority without taking up arms?

The Quran/hadiths and preachers/scholars - Numerous abhorrent statements and sound bites (I won't list them - just do some research particularly into the hadiths). A "small minority" of preachers/scholars justify the murder of apostates, encourage militant jihad, promote "dhimmi" status for non-believers, murder of homosexuals, sharia law and genocide of the Jews as explicitly stated in the hadith. How large and influential is this small minority?

Journalists who display great intolerance by playing the "Islamophobia" and "numbers game" card are stifling any debate or criticism of a major world religion. All religions should be open to the same level of scrutiny as for example politics, but for some reason (mainly due to fear of offence or reprisals) religion is insulated from the awkward questions that it has a duty to answer. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

John "Babbacombe" Lee The man they could not hang

An oft-told tale

The story of how a young Devonshire man cheated the gallows not just once, nor twice, but three times, is one that has been retold many times and in many forms.

John Henry George Lee was born in August 1864 in the village of Abbotskerswell. On leaving school he was employed as a servant by Emma Keyse, a spinster who lived at The Glen in Babbacombe (or Babbicombe as it was known then), a peaceful seaside hamlet near Torquay. A few years later he enlisted in the navy at Devonport but was discharged through injury after three years. He then went into service under one Colonel Brownlow who lived at Ridge Hill in Torquay; in 1883 he was convicted of stealing silverware worth £20 from his master for which he was sentenced to six months hard labour at Exeter Prison after entering a guilty plea.

Murder most foul

Following his release from prison in 1884, Miss Keyse, who had taken a shine to Lee when he first worked in her household, decided to give him a second chance, and he was once again employed at The Glen where his half-sister Elizabeth Harris worked as a cook.

Disaster struck on the 15th November of that year when there was a fire at the house and Emma was found dead with her throat cut. It appeared that the fire had been started by the murderer to incinerate her body, so as to destroy any evidence at the scene. John Lee, then 20 years old, was thought to be the only male in the house at the time and was arrested on suspicion of murder. It was known that he held a grudge against Emma after she had recently reduced his wages, but the evidence against him was purely circumstantial. He was found to have a cut on his arm which he said happened when he broke the window of the dining room to let out the smoke. He was unable to give a satisfactory account of his movements at the time of the murder and following an inquest was sent for trial at Exeter Assizes.

Inquest and trial

An inquest was held before a jury at St Marychurch Town Hall, starting two days after the murder. Twenty-five witness statements were read including those of the cook Elizabeth Harris and the two other maidservants resident at The Glen, the elderly sisters Eliza and Jane Neck. The jury returned a verdict accusing Lee of being responsible for Emma's death and the coroner directed that Wilful murder by John Leeshould appear on her death certificate. Today this presumption of guilt before trial would be regarded as a travesty of justice, but it was normal practice at the time: even if Lee were to be acquitted at his trial, the cause of death written on the certificate would stand.

The trial was held in Exeter Guildhall beginning on February 2nd 1885. Lee was to be represented in court by Reginald Gwynne Templer, a young solicitor who was acquainted with Miss Keyse, making it perverse that he should act for the defence. However, it was claimed that he was known to the Lee family also, and it was Lee's parents who had recommended him. Two days before the trial was due to start Reginald was taken ill and was replaced by his younger brother Charles and the Liberal MP for St Ives, John St Aubyn. Reginald never fully recovered and died on 18 December 1886 from paralysis of the insane - a Victorian medical euphemism usually associated with tertiary syphilis. Adding to the intrigue surrounding Gwynne Templer, there was speculation that he was the lover of Lee's half-sister Elizabeth Harris the cook, who was pregnant by an unknown father at the time of the murder. While he has never been named publicly as the perpetrator, there is a widely held view that he was the murderer, and Lee was only guilty of the subordinate role of covering up the crime.

Lee protested his innocence throughout the trial, but his case was poorly presented with no defence witnesses being called and inadequate cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution case was unconvincing too, amounting to little more than that Lee, a young man with a criminal record, was the only male in the house at the time of the murder and was found with blood on his clothes after the event. It was also suggested that Lee's coat and trousers smelled of paraffin oil, but evidence from the medical practitioner cast doubt on whether this was true of the trousers when he first examined them, suggesting that this exhibit had been tampered with:

The coat smelt strongly of paraffin. I examined a pair of trousers also shown to me and there is a patch of blood on one of the legs, a little to the back. I notice now a smell of oil about them. Did not so notice it when P.C. called upon me at my Surgery. [From testimony by Herber Nicholas Chilcote at Lee's trial]

Although the evidence against Lee was little more than circumstantial, the jury took a mere 40 minutes to find him guilty and he was sentenced to death by hanging. On being asked by the judge as to why he had taken the sentence with such equanimity, Lee replied:

The reason I am so calm, is that I trust in the Lord, and he knows that I am innocent.

The aborted execution

Capital punishment in 19th century Exeter

Prior to 1868 executions in Exeter (and elsewhere in the UK) were public spectacles that drew vast crowds of morbidly curious onlookers. For example, the last public execution of a woman in Exeter was that of Mary Anne Ashford who was found guilty of the murder of her husband. Her hanging outside the County Gaol on 28 March 1866 was watched by as many as 20,000 spectators. Following passage of the Capital Punishment Amendment Act in 1868, executions had to take place inside prisons; apart from the officials responsible for carrying out the judicial killing and the prison chaplain, only accredited members of the press were allowed to witness the event.

The execution method used in Great Britain at the time of Lee's execution was known as the long drop. In this procedure, instead of letting the victim fall a standard distance, the person's height and weight were used to determine an appropriate length of rope to use to ensure that the neck was broken without decapitation occurring during the drop.

John Lee, now condemned, awaits his execution

Lee's execution was set to take place in Exeter Prison on 23 February 1885. He wrote a long letter to his half-sister Elizabeth Harris 12 days before this date in which he questioned the truthfulness of her testimony and that of the other servants at The Glen at his trial.

There is no doubt that the truth will come out after I am dead. It must be some very hard hearted persons to let me die for nothing; they have not told six words of truth, that is the servants, and that lovely stepsister, who carries her character with her.

The night before the fateful day Lee claimed to have had a vision in which an angel told him he need have no fear as he wouldn't be executed because he was innocent.

The scaffold is readied and the drop tested

The scaffold to be used was originally housed in an old prison hospital building. It was removed from this site pending its demolition, and was re-erected in the van-house in 1882. This was to be the first execution to be carried out in the new location. As was the usual practice the drop was pre-tested by the executioner, Yorkshireman James Berry in this instance. This is the procedure that was followed according to the prison governor Edwin Cowtan:

On the morning of Saturday 21st February, the apparatus was by my order thoroughly overhauled, cleaned, and tested by the engineer officer, and a warder carpenter.

On the afternoon of the same day the apparatus was again tasted by the artisan warder and Berry the executioner, the latter, after trying it twice over, reporting to me verbally that he was satisfied with it for the present use.

No further testing took place on the Sunday and the executioner Berry remained in the prison until the Monday when the execution was to begin at 8am.

The notorious execution commences

The Chief Constable of Devon, Gerald de Courcy Hamilton, describes the remarkable events that unfolded during the attempted execution of Lee:

On the prisoner reaching the place of execution he was placed by Berry, the executioner, immediately under the cross-beam, over which was carried the rope; he was faced outwards towards the door, with both feet standing transversely on the junction of the two flaps or shutters which formed the drop. The executioner, with considerable skill and rapidity (as it appears to me) strapped the culprits legs above the ankles, drew the cap over his face, adjusted the noose round his neck, stepped back and pulled the iron handle or trigger, to let fall the foot-boards, to my intense astonishment, however, these latter deflected only about a quarter of an inch and appeared to be tightly jammed together about the centre. The executioner and some of the prison officials standing by endeavoured, by stamping on the boards, to get them to move, but without avail. After some seconds the prisoner's face was uncovered, and he was led away to an adjoining cell or room in the prison.

In the meanwhile, the executioner and the prison officials did their best to ascertain the cause of the machine not working. My own impression was that, the morning being very wet and damp, the foot-boards had become swollen, and were thus unable to free themselves when their top edges came in contact. I consequently urged the use of a plane, and pointed out the spot which I considered caused the impediment. The prison engineer procured a plane and a tomahawk, and we eased the centre of the boards. A prison warder was made to stand on them, holding on by both hands to the rope; the trigger was pulled, and the boards fell. The prisoner was then brought out again, and the execution proceeded as in the first instance, but again the boards refused to fall.

Hamilton went on to say that Lee was subjected to a third unsuccessful hanging attempt, and maybe even a fourth: other eyewitness accounts contradict this, saying that Lee was strung up for the drop no more than three times. After the the flaps failed to open for the third time, following an animated discussion between the officials present the execution was abandoned and Lee was returned to his cell. The prison Medical Officer takes up the story:

That this third attempt having failed, I ordered him to be removed to a cell near, myself attempting to take him into my reception ward through which he had previously passed. That I am reported to have said to the prison officials, "You may experiment as much as you like on a sack of flour, but you shall not experiment on this man any longer".

That he was accordingly taken into a passage near; that presently the Governor informed the chaplain and myself that the apparatus would not work; that I then desired that the man should be taken back and the execution postponed; that the said condemned prisoner was returned to his cell; that I offered the Under Sheriff a certificate, which he was glad to accept. That such certificate was drawn up in my office and signed by the Governor, chaplain, and myself, for the information of Her Majesty's Secretary of State.

The cause of the failure is investigated

The scaffold platform had two sets of hinges. Those at the outer edge allowed the two halves to swing open downwards when the release mechanism was activated; the other hinges ran along the entire length where the two halves met in the middle. These hinges were held in place by draw-bolts at one end which were released by pulling a lever, allowing the hanging prisoner to drop as both halves swung down.

On the morning following the day of execution two clerks of works made a careful examination of the apparatus. Rather than jamming because the boards were too close at the centre, as had been thought at the time, in the Report on the Cause of Failure of the Machinery of the Scaffold the two men concluded that the equipment hadn't been reassembled correctly when it was moved to the van-house.

They discovered that the end of the long hinges was resting on one-eighth of an inch on the draw-bolt at the crank. They then tried to work the lever without any weight on the platform and found that when the lever was drawn quickly the platform fell. If drawn slowly, on one trial it remained fast, and on another trial it fell, but seemed to bind or grate at the end of the long hinge. They were then perfectly satisfied that the cause of the failure to act was due to the fact that one of the long hinges rested on the draw-bolt one-eighth of an inch too much. It is probable that in the re-fixing of the scaffold the two sides were placed one-eighth of an inch nearer than they had been before, or that the long hinge had been very slightly bent in some way at that time.

The aftermath

After the Home Secretary Sir William Harcourt had been informed of the circumstances of Lee's execution he immediately passed an order commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. In answer to a question in the House of Commons on 23rd February 1885 he replied:

The under-Sheriff of Exeter came up to London afternoon to see me, and told me the facts of this painful case; and after considering them I thought that it would shock the feelings of everyone if a man had twice to incur the pangs of imminent death. I, therefore, this afternoon signed a respite in his case, to continue during Her Majesty's pleasure.

There was much disquiet in the press and in parliament over the affair and the way executioners were appointed on an add hoc basis; on 24 February 1885 The Guardian in its editorial called for more efficient executions. The Home Secretary bowed to pressure and ordered that an enquiry be held into the matter.

Lee was released from prison in 1907 after serving 22 years in Portland Prison. He became a minor celebrity, touring the country giving his own version of the story which he published in 1912 in book form as The Man They Could Not Hang. A silent film of his story was also made in this year. He married a Devon woman in January 1909 with whom he fathered two children. He abandoned his wife for another woman, travelling with her to the USA in 1911. He lived until the age of 80, dying on 19 March 1945 in Milwaukee.

Hadriani Relandi's: Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata

There exists a mountain of mis-information about the Roman named "Palestina", that could be easily cleared by Hadriani Relandi's: Palaestina ex monumentis veteribus illustrata, Volume 1, chronicling his trip in the land of Palestina in 1695/6.

The author Relandi, was fluent in, ancient Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, as well as the European languages. He was known as a noted cartographer,geographer, philologist, and scholar, Relandi surveyed approximately 2500 places where people lived, mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, Mishnah or Talmud. His research method was interesting: First, he mapped the land. Secondly, Relandi identified each of the places mentioned in the Mishnah or Talmud, along with their original source. If the source was Jewish, he listed it together with the appropriate sentence in the Hebrew Scriptures. If the source was Roman or Greek he presented the connection in Greek or Latin. Thirdly, Thirdly, he arranged a population survey and census of each community visited.

Prominent conclusions: The land was predominently, desolate, empty;its' inhabitants few, concentrated in the towns of Acco, Gaza, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Tiberius, and Tzfat. Most of the inhabitants were Jews and the rest, Christians. There were few Muslims, and a scattering of nomad Bedouins. Nablus, called Shchem, where approximately 120 people, members of the Muslim Natsha family and approximately 70 Shomronites, lived. It is interesting and worthy to mention, that Relandi referred to the Muslims as "nomad Bedouins" who arrived in the area as construction and agriculture labor reinforcement, seasonal workers.In the Galilee capital, Nazareth, lived approximately 700 Christians and in Jerusalem approximately 5000 people, mostly Jews and some Christians. Relandi learned that not one settlement in Palestina, had a name that was of Arabic origin. Settlement names originated in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Roman languages.

This beautifully illustrated book, contradicts any post-modern theory which claims a "Palestinian heritage," or Palestinian nation. It further strengthens and validates the connection, kinship of this country to the Jewish people, relevance, pertinence, and the absolute lack of Arab ownership, who adopted the Latin name Palestina for their own.

Richard Dawkins is Right

Richard Dawkins recent tweet stating, “All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though” has produced paroxysm outrage among Muslims and other defenders of Islam. Nesrine Malik fulminates, “But this, in its deliberately obtuse (say what you like, but Dawkins is not a stupid man) baiting, was a new low.” She contends that the Oxford don is really trying to say ’that Muslims as a unit throughout history have done nothing since the Middle Ages, and that is clearly attributable to their stupid religion’.

The sad truth is that since the 12th Century, scientific endeavour in the Muslim world has lacked woefully behind that of much of the rest of the world (both East and West), yet in the 300 years 800-1100AD the centre of thinking and academic endeavour in the world was Baghdad. Indeed the names of many of the stars in the night sky are testament to this period, as is algebra and many other mathematical advances. Baghdad also welcomed persons of all faiths (and non) to engage in free-thought and debate. This all ended in the 12 Century when an Imam named Hamid Al-Ghazali enforced the more rigid, orthodox and unquestioning interpretation of the Muslim faith we see globally today. This is what Dawkins was referring to in his tweets, I doubt many of those who criticise him, both Muslim and non-Muslim have ever bothered to educate themselves on this era of Islamic history, they will just engage 'offended' mode and spout the same old nonsense in Dawkins' direction about him being a bigoted angry atheist. It is pathetic. I have not seen one person offer up a rational, educated counter argument to the points he made.

This offence taking and faux-outrage has been whipped up not just by Muslims and other religious folk, but by apologists for Islam and Islamism especially on the left/liberal side of the debate. It seems like all bets are off when it comes to any debate about this single faith, that by criticising Islam (which is a man-made Idea) you are somehow being a horrid bigot, it is censorship by the back door and is a vile trait in many commentators and public figures I usually side with in public debate.

Yes, there is a certain section of the society who hate and discriminate against individual Muslims out of fear and ignorance, but it is intellectually and morally abhorrent to lump in legitimate critics of Islam/Islamism such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris with these actual bigots. Dawkins has often shared a stage with and spoken in support of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a female apostate from Islam who has had to go into hiding because of very credible death threats made to her and the murder of Theo Van Gogh, with whom she worked with on the film 'Submission.' Indeed I would say Dawkins writings, speeches, support and tweets have aided more people suffering under religious persecution and dogmatic intolerance than any tweet bemoaning 'Islamophobia' from the likes of Mehdi Hasan, Owen Jones or Mo Ansar.