 |
| Fort Worden, Washington |
Then she and her friend Shirley invited their boyfriends over. We have no photos of Lulu, but she was clearly an attractive woman. Despite her age (she was 42 years old) and the children, she had gained the fond attentions of Homer Cameron, a local carpenter who was just 24 years old. Shirley, ten years younger than Lulu, was also married, but separated from her husband. She too had attracted a youthful admirer, a soldier who was a year younger than Cameron.
The couples danced and, at times, Shirley played current romantic tunes on a piano while everyone sang along. It’s unclear how long this had been going on when George walked in unexpectedly. He became livid with anger and ordered Cameron out of the house.
Cameron may have hesitated too long, so the soldier went after him with his fists. But George, almost fifty years old and in shaky health, lost. In fact, he received a black eye for his troubles. With humiliation added to anger, George began shouting curses and threats at Lulu. The two young men tried to hold him back, but he broke free and started at her. She later claimed that she called out a warning, but the others could not recall one way or another. Then Lulu shot, hitting him in the forehead with a .32-caliber bullet. He died almost instantly.
Military officials opened a brief inquiry having to do with family benefits, but civil authorities carried on after that. Lulu was charged with first degree murder, and prosecutors scheduled her trial to begin in mid-March, 1931.
Lulu Traylor was born in July 1888, in Louisiana. She married Chester H. Peters in McLennan County, Texas (near Waco), in October 1911. Peters was white, so that entailed some risk and/or subterfuge. At that time, most southern and some northern states strictly enforced laws against interracial marriages. And for both the 1900 and 1910 censuses, Lulu and her family were identified as persons of color – “mulatto” in the 1910 census. But Lulu could successfully “pass” for white (she would be listed as white in later censuses).
Chester and Lulu had their first child, a boy, in 1913. Chester worked for the railroad and moved around, so their daughter was born in San Antonio, in January 1921. But some time after that, the couple divorced, with Lulu retaining custody of the two kids.
We don’t know when or where she met George Hilsinger, a long-time veteran of the U.S. Army. Born around 1882 in New Hampshire, George enlisted in August 1905. Available records don’t say where he spent World War I, but he was at a base in Wisconsin in 1920. He was then married, but must have divorced not long after that.
Records show that Hilsinger did have duty stations in Texas, so that is presumably where he met and married Lulu. The family lived in the Philippines from late 1922 until the summer of 1924. On the return trip, Lulu told the boarding agent that she was 29 years old, trimming about six years off her age.
But all was not well in the Hilsinger household, and the couple divorced some time in the next year or so. Still, the two worked things out and they remarried in April 1928. At that time, George was stationed at Fort Worden, a coastal defense and training station. Lulu remained consistent for the 1930 census taker, giving her age as 35 (she was actually over 41).
Despite the apparent reconciliation, acquaintances reported that the couple quarreled a lot. There also seemed to be evidence of physical as well as verbal abuse. Later, Lulu would assert that she was again considering divorce.
The death weapon naturally became a matter of interest. “Some weeks” before the shooting, Cameron had tried to give Lulu an automatic pistol. One may presume he wanted her to have some protection against George’s abuse. But Lulu apparently refused to keep the gun around. On the day of the shooting, Cameron had the pistol in his coat pocket. He naturally set his coat aside at the start of the party. When the fistfight began, Lulu retrieved the weapon, fearing what might happen … rightly, as it turned out.
When the case came to trial, Lulu’s attorneys pled temporary insanity, and self-defense. Oddly enough, criminologist Luke May logged this case as a handwriting assessment, not a firearms investigation. (Prosecutors must have already had all they needed for the weapon.) May was hired to examine recent letters to Lulu that had supposedly been written by George when he was away on an extended trip. Luke verified that they were indeed from husband to wife.
Lulu basically claimed that she panicked because her husband had previously been cruel to her, inflicting physical as well as mental harm. And she had proof of that, including at least one broken leg or ankle. The prosecution countered with George’s letters, which were apparently warm and affectionate.
Beyond that, prosecutors pointed out the odd circumstances involving the death weapon. And Lulu certainly was “fooling around” on her husband, although it was unclear if she and Cameron had a sexual relationship. In the end, the jury found her guilty of second-degree murder.
Then the case went to the state Supreme Court on appeal. That court found several questionable factors in how the prosecution handled the case. But the critical problem came in the instructions from the judge to the jury. As required by law, the judge outlined the legal criteria necessary to find a defendant guilty of first-degree murder, versus second-degree murder. The key difference was “premeditation,” or lack thereof.
However, early in his instructions, the judge said, “The killing of a human being is murder in the second degree when committed … without premeditation.” In doing so, he left out some crucial wording from the statute: “unless it is excusable or justifiable.” The judge did mention the notion of “justifiable” in his later summing up. However, the Supreme Court decided his approach only served to confuse the jury. The court reversed the verdict and sent the case back for retrial.
Because of all the publicity for the first trial, a change of venue was granted. The new jury heard the same evidence, including the indications of Lulu’s unfaithfulness. From that, they could sympathize with George’s anger. But his past abuse, plus his seeming to “fly off the handle” also gave them reason to believe that his wife had good cause to fear bodily harm. Weighing all the factors, the jury found her “not guilty” of murder, acknowledging her right to “stand her ground” in the face of an imminent physical attack.
During the protracted legal battle, Lulu had sent her children back to Texas to live with relatives. After the ordeal, she returned there and found a job as a waitress. She also reverted to her first married name of “Peters.”
| References: “[Hilsinger Shooting],” Daily Olympian, Olympia, Seattle Times, Bellingham Herald, Washington; The Oregonian, Portland, Oregon (December 1930 – October 1932). |
| Luke S. May, Luke S. May Papers, Special Collections, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington (1969). |
| Charles Frank Robinson II, Dangerous Liaisons: Sex and Love in the Segregated South, The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville (2009). |
| State v. Hilsinger, 167 Wash. 427, 9 P.2d 357 (March 29, 1932). |
| Photo credit: Fort Worden Site & Facilities Plan, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, Olympia, Washington (August 2008). |
No comments:
Post a Comment