MURDER TRAGEDY

Hokitika Guardian, 15 May 1920, Page 4

MURDER TRAGEDY

j LOVE AND JEALOUSY.

HUSBAND ACQUITTED AFTEIt . ! THIIEE TRIALS.

j Jealousy being probably the most common and tragic of masculine weaknesses, by the same token is perhaps the most easily forgiven failing by a jury of men. Criminal records show, an almost negligible number of murder I’convictions in cases where “the unwrit- ! ten law” lias 'been the defence. Hut a ! corollary to this long recognised axiom ! has been established .by the recent acquittal, in Browmvood, Texas, of Harry ! J. Span oil, central figure in one of ‘ the most amazing love, jealousy, and murder tragedies of a decade. The ver--1 diet in effect places ifi the same cate- ■ gory with those wronged under the “unwritten law,” a husband Jfcssed with ! the thought that lie had oeen taken j- advantage of by a friend. New phases ! of jury psychology' also are raised by this remarkable case, which had a rich background of wealth and romance. Spanell, on the night of July 20th, 1916, shot and killed liis beautiful young wife, rich in her own right, and Lieutenant-Colonel Matthew Galoraith Butler. For his double slaying ho was three .times tried for his life, lie Was acquitted of the murder of his wife at. the first trial on the grounds, that the bullet which killed her was intended solely for Colonel Butler. Later he was convicted of the mourder of Colonel Butler,' hut a, second trial resulted in the verdict recently of not guilty. Spanell did kill his wife and he did murder Colonel Butler. An army board of inquiry; who made an exhaustive investigation of tha conduct of Jolonel Butler, found that the army officer’s conduct towards Mr and Mrs Spanell was unimpeachable—merely that of lion ourable friendship. How, in the face of these facts then, did' the jury decide Spanell not guilty? Has justice miscarried, or lias a court of justice merely observed New Testament exhortations of foregiveness disregarding the older law of “an eye for an eye,” and death for him who spills the blood of another? These are questions which can be answered by the individual conscience only after a thorough exami i ition of the facts in the' case as presented in the evidence. Spanell' is a _ man of culture with a love of arts. A few years . back he was "professor of music at Baylor University in Walco, Texas, While he held the chair of music there went to the University, a beautiful young girl, Crystal Holland, daughter of a Texas cattle •man who had many other financial interests. Love of music was the common groufnd ,npon which they first met, and gradually the c °ngenial friendship developed ’into a. beautiful romance, resulting in their marriage. Spanell left the teaching staff and went to Alpine, Texas, to manage the Holland House, nil hotel owned by the bride’s father. AN HONOURABLE FlilEmSHli’. Mrs Spanell, youthful, beautiful, and vivacious, was a social favourite, and attracted many friendships, which “perhaps created the “green-eyed monster” in the heart and brain of her husband, which eventually, was to become unleashed and cause the terrible tragedy. When clouds of possible war hovered along the Mexican border prior to the Great War in Europe there 'went to the Holland House Lieutenant-Colonel Butler, a married, man with a family, and a gentleman from an old South Carolina family. They were cordially received by the Spanells and were frequently together. That nothing more than an honourable friendship existed, between Colonel Butler, and Mrs '''panell was the finding of the Army Board of Iquiry, but Spanell charged that his wife was insulted .by an army officer. He said she told him on one occasion that “something had happened.” and when pressed for an explanation she said she “couldn’t tell him.” Further than this no light was thrown o.i the matter at the three trials. It was evident, however, that spanell suffered great mental, agony; and who knows what 'dark shadows passed through his mind in the profligate flights of his Unbridled imaginations? At any rate the result came on the night of July 20th, 1916, when ilpancll invited Colonel Butler to accompany him t and Mrs Spanell on a motor ride in the Spanell machine. Several witnessed, the start of this fate ful trip. They testified that a few minutes before the three entered the ear. Cojonel Butler and .Spanell were chatting gaily. The husband assisted his wife into the rear seat of the machine and bowed Colonel Butler into the •tonneau beside her. He leaped into the front seat and took the wheel. Perhaps the exact details of what followed in the, next lb or 20 minutes never will be 'known. Adduced from the evidence the events and their sequence were as follows: THE ACTUAL SHOOTING. Spanell drove to a quiet and dark residential section of the little town. Reducing the speed of the motor to a minimum, he suddenly turned and fired a volley of shots into- the tonneau Colonel Butler, struck in the face and body by bullets, sank'down dead. There was a c ry: “Oh, Harry, don’t shoot me!” But Mrs Spanned had x-eaehed a death wound and fell expiring across the body of Colonel Butler. Spanell stopped the engine and left the car Some time later he walked into the Alpine Courthouse and surrendered himself to the authorities. News of the tragedy spread quickly and there was such a revulsion of public opinion against Spanell that he was spirited out of the place to a town lest an attempt to lynch him be nade. How jealousy can prompt a man to destroy the one dearest to him in the world lias long been a problem discussed. by psychologists without definite conclusions. And the reaction on Spanell came only a few minutes after he had surrendered, dazed to the authorities. He sat in his cell, crying hysterically. “Crystal, Crystal,; come back to me! Let us live again together.”