The murder of Professor William H.G. Butler

The basics:
On November 2, 1853 in Louisville, Kentucky, a well-to-do Matthew F. Ward, 28, brought a self-cocking pistol into the privately run Louisville High School and killed "Professor" William H. G. Butler for what he felt was excessive punishment of his younger brother William, age 15, the day before. Even though Ward shot Butler point blank in front of his students, Ward was acquitted.

What makes this incident stand out is not so much the crime, but the story surrounding the crime and its aftermath. Not only does this case mirror the divide we see between socio-economic classes of today; the influence of the 1% versus the 99%. It also echoes the scenarios played out in the more than 78 acts of violence perpetrated on school campuses since 2000.

In Kentucky lore, it is considered one of the more famous cases, Ward Sr. being regarded as the wealthiest man in Kentucky at the time. And just as we have seen in today's world, with the "afluenza defense" of Ethan Couch, money spoke even back then. As Eric Boyles, father and husband of two of Couch's victims states:

“Money always seems to keep (the teen) out of trouble,,, Ultimately today, I felt that money did prevail. If (he) had been any other youth, I feel like the circumstances would have been different.”

Ward Sr. spared no expense, a total of eighteen lawyers were engaged in his defense.

Some background:
For practical purposes, (all) the Ward boys sounded like what we call today "the typical rich kid;" (See the Hassenpflug PDF for an in-depth narrative.) and this being an era when corporal punishment reigned, I can imagine that after hearing of the "mistreatment," tempers of the Ward family ran hot. What is intriguing to note, though Ward was not a school student perpetrating the crime, there were "warning signs" that eventually he would do as he did. Hassenpflug notes, this was not the first time Ward had come to the defense of a young sibling.

Although they likely were not aware of it, Sturgus and Butler were not the first teachers to have difficulty with the Wards’ sons. Several years earlier, when William was a pupil at Josiah Bliss’ Louisville Collegiate Institute, he had received discipline from Bliss for telling a lie. The next morning Matt Ward, whom Bliss had not previously met, arrived at the schoolroom with his younger brothers, William, Robert, and Victor. Matt asked to see Bliss outside the room. As the teacher started to walk towards the door, he noticed that the younger brothers looked anxious and halted, asking Matt what he wanted. Matt asked why Bliss had whipped William the previous day. Still inside the schoolroom, Bliss asked Matt to step inside for his explanation. Instead, Matt called him a “d-d rascal and coward” for not leaving the room. Bliss suspected that Matt was armed and tried to shut the door, but Matt placed his foot so that door at first could not be closed. When Bliss did succeed in shutting the door, he heard several kicks against the door as well as cursing before the Wards left.

Moreover, prior to enrolling in the Louisville High School, a Professor Guentz had dismissed the younger Ward boys from yet another school, Shelby College. Following his brothers’ departure from that school, Matt sent “a most violent letter” to the teacher despite his friends’ advice to the contrary.”

So, yes, history does repeat itself. If we fail to learn from it, is it no wonder that tragedies such as Columbine and Newtown continue to occur?

Premeditation:
As with any trial, recent or otherwise, verdicts have a tendency to baffle our minds; this case is no exception. In a sense it is probably the first of many backassward jury verdicts. I'm not going to delve too deeply about the trial, just some points concerning Ward's actions I think show why the juries verdict was inconsistent with the evidence and how or why this crime mirrors what we have witnessed since Columbine.

"If we had only seen the signs." How many times have we heard those close to the perpetrators say these words. "I didn't think s/he was capable of such a thing." (Yes, there are some female perps out there as you will see later in this series.) Then upon reflection, months down the road reality sets in as shock wanes. That reality, is ever present in the murder of William Butler.

A threat was made, "Matt informed Sturgus that after learning of his younger brother’s punishment he had intended to go to the school ." [I believe the author mistyped and it should read ,,,'to call and inflict person[al] violence' on Butler."]

Prior history of overtly aggressive behavior, I have touched on above. Those incidents did not lead to any deaths, but a foreshadowing. Ward's father was aware that his son was going to confront Butler; "the apology that a gentleman ought to make" should have clued him in. This was still an era were dueling was a means of settling conflict--the Hamilton-Burr duel or the Jackson-Dickinson duel of the early 1800s come to mind.

Matt informed his father that he was going to the school to see Butler, his father offered to go because it was his responsibility as the parent to inquire into the disciplining of his son. According to his father’s testimony at the murder trial, Matt insisted that he wanted to go to force Butler to offer “in the presence of the school, the apology that a gentleman ought to make.”

This was not a crime of spontaneity, it was premeditated:

Indeed, earlier that same morning Matt had gone alone to a gun shop, where he bought two self-cocking pistols and requested that they be loaded before he left the store,,, About a half hour before the three Ward brothers arrived at the school, one of the Wards’ slaves had gone to the school to collect the boys’ books and escort the fourth son, Victor, back to the Ward home.

The press:
Even without the technology of today's multi-media platforms, the press was ever present and some say influential in the outcome of Ward's trial; it was just a bit slower.

Among the reasons that the defense offered for the change of venue was the collective behavior of the editors of the Louisville newspapers. In the months until the trial began in mid-April 1854, the three major daily papers published articles attacking each other’s coverage of the murder and the subsequent public reaction. The Louisville Journal’s Whig editor, George Prentice, a friend of the Ward family, chose to give minimal coverage to the murder and to the police court testimony of witnesses in order to not create prejudice in the community and thus prevent a fair trial. Prentice’s appearance as a character witness at Matt’s trial would soon belie his claim of neutrality and led other newspaper editors to question his conduct as a publisher.

The editors of the Louisville Daily Democrat were as indisputably out-raged by the murder as were the editors of the Louisville Daily Courier. Although these newspapers, like Prentice’s, insisted that they intended to leave justice to the courts, they felt that the press bore responsibility for covering the news. Consequently they ran letters from citizens and articles from newspapers around the region that expressed dismay over the murder.

The trial and some of the issues concerning:
The case was tried before Circuit Judge Jesse W Kincheloe with the commonwealth being represented by attorney Alfred Allen. In presenting their case, the prosecution introduced twenty-one witnesses; the defense introduced more than seventy. After granting a change of venue, Ward's trial began on April 18, 1854. The jury took the case at five o’clock in the afternoon of April 26th. A verdict of not guilty was delivered early the following morning.

As with any trial, there are always accusations of misbehavior. Just open any news story of any trial in progress or recently completed and bad behavior pounces out at you. Again this case was no different: preferential press treatment afforded Ward due to social status (see above), Judicial malfeasance, perjury by witnesses, and bribery/corruption of the jury.

In his opening statement the judge instructed the jury to find Matt guilty or not guilty of manslaughter. If the jury concluded that he acted in self- defense, then the jury was to find him not guilty. Curiously, Kincheloe neglected to instruct it that conviction of murder was the third option. Only at the conclusion of the trial did the judge mention to the jury that murder was a possible reason for conviction, but even then he did not adequately explain the difference between manslaughter and murder.
[,,,]
Some of the defense’s testimony was clearly suspect. One of the most dubious witnesses and one whose testimony the public and newspapers would later ridicule was a carpenter named Barlow. He claimed to have been present at Col. Harney’s shortly after the wounded Butler arrived and assisted the first doctor on the scene. However, that doctor was certain that Barlow was not present and did not assist him,,, He claimed under cross-examination that the Wards did not pay him for his testimony.

Aftermath:
Following the not guilty verdict citizens of Louisville protested by forming an "indignation meeting," passing resolutions denouncing the verdict, as well as demanding that Ward and his brother leave the city. Repercussions were also felt by defense attorney Nat Wolfe, who was asked to resign his seat in the State Legislature; and George D. Prentice as well as members of the jury.

As for Ward's father, his home was stoned, windows busted and set fire to the front of it.

Noble Butler, brother of the man slain by Ward; appealed to the people to stay the hand of violence and act calmly. A sentiment echoed over a century later by Rodney King in regards to the 1992 Los Angeles riots.

It is said that Ward left the state for a Louisiana plantation, eventually ending up in Arkansas were he was killed during the Civil War.

With passions still running high, there were many hints of bribery and corruption of the jury, four members were indicted by the grand jury in July on charges of perjury. Only one, Yates, was actually tried and acquitted. Charges against the others were then dismissed.

Victim: Professor William H. G. Butler

Perps: Matthew F. Ward and his brother William, who had been indicted as an accessory

Sources:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50711FC3A55147B93C1A9178AD95F478584F9
http://genforum.genealogy.com/ward/messages/15374.html
http://www.filsonhistorical.org/archive/ovhpdfs/OVH_V4N2_Hassenpflug.pdf