The Angry Exile: Which is it?

The Hangman

Into our town the Hangman came,
Smelling of gold and blood and flame.
And he paced our bricks with a diffident air,
And built his frame in the courthouse square.
The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
Only as wide as the door was wide;
A frame as tall, or little more,
Than the capping sill of the courthouse door.
And we wondered, whenever we had the time,
Who the criminal, what the crime
That the Hangman judged with the yellow twist
of knotted hemp in his busy fist.
And innocent though we were, with dread,
We passed those eyes of buckshot lead --
Till one cried: "Hangman, who is he
For whom you raised the gallows-tree?"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
And he gave us a riddle instead of reply:
"He who serves me best," said he,
"Shall earn the rope of the gallows-tree."
And he stepped down, and laid his hand
On a man who came from another land.
And we breathed again, for another's grief
At the Hangman's hand was our relief
And the gallows-frame on the courthouse lawn
By tomorrow's sun would be struck and gone.
So we gave him way, and no one spoke,
Out of respect for his Hangman's cloak.
The next day's sun looked mildly down
On roof and street in our quiet town,
And stark and black in the morning air
Was the gallows-tree in the courthouse square.
And the Hangman stood at his usual stand
With the yellow hemp in his busy hand;
With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike
And his air so knowing and business-like.
And we cried, "Hangman, have you not done
Yesterday, with the foreign one?"
Then we fell silent, and stood amazed,
"Oh, not for him was the gallows raised."
He laughed a laugh as he looked at us:
"Did you think I'd gone to all this fuss
To hang one man? That's a thing I do
To stretch a rope when the rope is new."
Then one cried "Murder!" and one cried "Shame!"
And into our midst the Hangman came
To that man's place. "Do you hold," said he,
"with him that was meant for the gallows-tree?"
And he laid his hand on that one's arm.
And we shrank back in quick alarm!
And we gave him way, and no one spoke
Out of fear of his Hangman's cloak.
That night we saw with dread surprise
The Hangman's scaffold had grown in size.
Fed by the blood beneath the chute,
The gallows-tree had taken root;
Now as wide, or a little more,
Than the steps that led to the courthouse door,
As tall as the writing, or nearly as tall,
Halfway up on the courthouse wall.
The third he took -- we had all heard tell --
Was a usurer, and an infidel.
"What," said the Hangman "have you to do
With the gallows-bound, and he a Jew?"
And we cried out, "Is this one he
Who has served you well and faithfully?"
The Hangman smiled: "It's a clever scheme
to try the strength of the gallows-beam."
The fourth man's dark, accusing song
Had scratched our comfort hard and long;
"And what concern," he gave us back.
"Have you for the doomed -- the doomed and Black?"
The fifth. The sixth. And we cried again,
"Hangman, Hangman, is this the man?"
"It's a trick," he said. "that we hangmen know
For easing the trap when the trap springs slow."
And so we ceased, and asked no more,
As the Hangman tallied his bloody score.
And sun by sun, and night by night,
The gallows grew to monstrous height.
The wings of the scaffold opened wide
Till they covered the square from side to side;
And the monster cross-beam, looking down,
Cast its shadow across the town.
Then through the town the Hangman came,
Through the empty streets, and called my name --
And I looked at the gallows soaring tall,
And thought, "There is no one left at all
For hanging, and so he calls to me
To help pull down the gallows-tree."
So I went out with right good hope
To the Hangman's tree and the Hangman's rope.
He smiled at me as I came down
To the courthouse square through the silent town.
And supple and stretched in his busy hand
Was the yellow twist of the hempen strand.
And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap,
And it sprang down with a ready snap --
And then with a smile of awful command
He laid his hand upon my hand.
"You tricked me. Hangman!," I shouted then,
"That your scaffold was built for other men...
And I no henchman of yours," I cried,
"You lied to me, Hangman. Foully lied!"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
"Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I.
For I answered straight and I told you true --
The scaffold was raised for none but you.
For who has served me more faithfully
Then you with your coward's hope?" said he,
"And where are the others who might have stood
Side by your side in the common good?"
"Dead," I whispered. And amiably
"Murdered," the Hangman corrected me:
"First the foreigner, then the Jew...
I did no more than you let me do."
Beneath the beam that blocked the sky
None had stood so alone as I.
The Hangman noosed me, and no voice there
Cried "Stop!" for me in the empty square.

Maurice Ogden

Sunday 7 March 2010

Which is it?

First we're left to speculate, then it was thought that he tried to contact the Bulger family or Robert Thompson, then it's drugs and fighting, then it's a sex crime according to the Currant Bun, but officially we're still left to speculate. So which is it? Hard to see anyone confusing a taste for Bolivian marching powder with a sex crime, though the sex crime theory is naturally appealing. It's easy to associate the murder of a child with a sexual motive, though that means putting aside the horrific deaths from boggo physical abuse and neglect. Recalling what was reported back in 1993 Jamie Bulger's murder seems to have been more about a couple of semi-human sadists abducting and killing a child simply for shits and giggles. Monstrous, yes. Evil, yes. Twisted, yes. Perverted? Not in the sense we usually use. That's not saying that Venables isn't a nonce - he might well be - but that many people would like it to turn out that he is.

If I'm honest that includes me. It's a narrative that seems to fit because it would make him more fundamentally and irredeemably evil, and would justify all the outrage that everyone felt that a pair of child killers was released so early. That I'd quite like it to be true is a good reason to be wary of seeing the latest reports and assuming that they're right and the earlier ones wrong. Of course all this speculation and wondering could have been avoided with a simple decision by Jack Straw. Sadly it's probably too late now and any scales falling from eyes and sudden conversions to the principle of openness will look unconvincing. How will we ever really know the truth when the government has done its level best to keep it from us?

3 comments:

Anonymous said...: One small point - it's very possible that the reason why what he's done is being kept secret is that it might lead to a trial. If everyone knows his new identity and what he's been accused of how could that trial ever be fair? I don't want to either see him convicted of something he didn't do, or get away with something he did.; 7 March 2010 at 08:20
Angry Exile said...: Now that's a very good point and the most plausible reason for not being open about what's happened. However there's just a couple of things. First it would be a very inconsistently applied principle - compare men accused of rape having their names released along with other details when there have been no shortage of cases where the alleged victim has fabricated it. Secondly, being on licence for life does he still have the right to a trial? Or is he subject to summary justice, one step out of line and it's in the clink? The law has enough inconsistencies that the first point might well mean nothing at all but the fact is Venables is already back inside without having been charged, much less remanded. This special hearing that's being talked about might be all that's legally needed to decide his future, though if whatever he did involves a victim then I'd agree there really ought to be a trial.; 7 March 2010 at 13:45
JuliaM said...: "...though if whatever he did involves a victim then I'd agree there really ought to be a trial."

I suspect this is the answer. If, as is now being speculated on all over the MSM, this involves a sexual assault, there'd be hell to pay if the authorities decided 'Nah, no need for trial'...; 7 March 2010 at 17:04