Bit of a miscarriage of justice in the serving of the sentences here. A bit.

78. Harriet – Elizabeth Jenkins

True crime from the 1870s, with a lot (and I mean A LOT) of commentary about dresses. Who deserves what dresses, Harriet, who isn’t well liked but has enough money for nice dresses, has great dresses. Alice does not. Yet, Alice is not her murderer except indirectly. Harriet, you see, has learning disabilities and really she shouldn’t be alone or left alone with who she was left with. Yes, it was clear that Harriet was disagreeable, and there definitely weren’t as many options for people to understand learning disabilities, but…that doesn’t mean she should be forced to starve to death in her room with her son while her husband pays for it so he can just hang out with his mistress and play house like he’s not married to Harriet.

He very clearly married Harriet to have some more money, she had money, and then he decided she didn’t deserve to live a full life anymore. He did because he was so clever and took her money. What a shitbird. And his brother and his wife were total shitbirds too, keeping Harriet upstairs through starvation and physical abuse with no decent facilities. Harriet deserved to have care and consideration like everyone else and she had enough money to have a decent life regardless of her learning disability, but that was denied to her by scheming shitbirds.

Apparently, Elizabeth Jenkins was biased towards the initial judge who sentenced all four to death, but, in the end the convictions got commuted to life imprisonment and the mistress went off free. Then, the wife who starved Harriet and Harriet’s husband the mastermind were released and that part just does not seem right. Her husband should have stayed and rotted, that’s what he let happen to Harriet.

 

Ozma side eyes the idea that what happened here was justice.