Captured: Portraits of Crime 1870-1930 - Flipbook - Page 65
In evidence presented at the coronial inquest into Lily Gorrick’s death and
at Lisson’s trial at Central Criminal Court on 4-7 October 1898, the question of
Lisson’s mental health arose. Joseph Smythe, a hairdresser employed by Lisson
described how prior to the events on the fateful day he “had seemed very sulky and
in a violent temper”. In the ‘interests of the defence’, Mrs Lisson asked that
‘certain mixtures’ her husband took for insomnia be tested. The Court heard that
several members of Lisson’s extended family had been committed to an asylum. Could
insanity run in the family? The defence’s ‘medical men’ concluded that Lisson was
‘undoubtedly insane’ at the time of the killing. But the Government Medical Officer
reported there was nothing in Lisson’s condition to suggest insanity.
The jury were asked to consider three questions: Did Lisson kill Lily Gorrick?
If so, did he know what he was doing at the time? And did he know it to be wrong? The
jury responded in the affirmative, but they believed Lisson to have been temporarily
insane when he committed the crime. On this basis, the jury asked that Lisson be
shown mercy, as a conviction for murder resulted in capital punishment. Found
guilty, Lisson was asked by Justice Owen whether he had anything to say. Lisson’s
response was rambling and he stated that he objected to the jury’s recommendation
for mercy. In pronouncing the death sentence, Justice Owen was reported to have
‘completely broke down’, as it was clear to all that the man was insane.
Lisson was admitted to Darlinghurst Gaol and placed in the condemned
prisoner’s cell. His wife visited him regularly. On 4 November 1898 the Executive
Council commuted Lisson’s death sentence to penal servitude for life. He was
transferred to Goulburn Gaol a few days later.
In November 1912, fourteen years after sustaining serious head injuries at
the hands of his father, Lisson’s son Rowland died from multiple neuritis.
On 31 October 1916 Napoleon Lisson was discharged from Goulbourn Gail on a
special license, which, under the Crimes Act 1900, could be granted by the Governor
to an offender to be at large subject to certain conditions for the remainder of
their sentence. The first that Lisson’s family knew about his release was his
appearance outside his father-in-law’s house near Picton. It was reported to have
been a ‘great shock’ for Emma Lisson, which was, no doubt, intensified by her
husband’s expectation to re-claim matrimonial rights.
Before the tragedy unfolded on August 1898 Napoleon Lisson had been a
‘gentleman’ and a well-to-do businessman. Although moody and eccentric, he had
always shown kindness and affection towards his wife and children. In an era when
respectability was crucial to and determining of social class status, there would
have been great shame in having a convicted murderer in the family. Indeed,
‘independent means’— an ambiguous categorisation — was how Lisson’s family explained
the convicted murderer’s profession at the time. Soon after Lisson’s release from
gaol, his surviving son, Victor, ‘formally, wholly, absolutely and utterly
renounced, relinquished and abandoned’ the surname Lisson, adopting his mother’s
maiden name, Gorrick. In 1920, Emma Lisson unsuccessfully petitioned for divorce
from Napoleon on the grounds of desertion due to his absence caused by imprisonment.
65
