LITERATURE REVIEW Another Look at a Bahamian Mystery: The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review

Cathleen LeGrand1 The College of

INTRODUCTION four lethal head wounds and burns from the fire, was discovered the next morning by his close Stop me if you've heard this one: friend and houseguest, Harold Christie, an The richest man in the Bahamas, no, the richest influential Bahamian estate agent. man in the British Empire, is murdered in his bed. Add to this cast of characters a smooth-operating He has suffered a fatal head wound caused by a Mauritian (Alfred deMarigny) married to Oakes' boat's winch lever. Or by bullets from a small- young daughter; a former King of England (the calibre gun. No, by a conch shell. Or by some Duke of Windsor), now forced to serve this tiny blunt object close at hand, still unidentified. colonial outpost; and the Duke's scandalous wife The rich man's body is set afire in order to burn (the Duchess of Windsor), for whom he down his house and conceal the details of the renounced his crown. crime. Or as a diversionary tactic, to confuse the Also, factor in the war raging around the globe. authorities. No, in a voodoo ritual. France had recently fallen to the Nazis; German The killer is his son-in-law. Or his houseguest. U-boats patrolled the Atlantic; and the shortages Or a Mafia hit man. and other exigencies of wartime were the rule. The reason for the murder: to eliminate a powerful The trial of Alfred deMarigny, Oakes' son-in-law, opponent of gambling. Or to prevent this made international news and his eventual acquittal rich man from leaving the Bahamas with his left the case unsolved—it remains unsolved today. businesses and wealth. Or to avenge the rich Let us not forget the recurring legend of all the man's resentment of his daughter's choice of “unexplained killings of people directly, or husband. Or to steal the enormous horde of gold indirectly, involved” with the Harry Oakes murder reported to be hidden in his house. (Marquis, 2006, p. 6). The richest man in the Bahamas (if not in the This may sound too good to be true. It may sound whole Empire) was Sir Harry Oakes, who earned like the plot to a best-selling pot-boiler. And it all his fortune from gold prospecting and spent the serves to explain the continuing interest in the rest of his life avoiding the tax man. He was murder of Sir Harry Oakes, often referred to, found murdered on the morning of 8 July 1943, hyperbolically (and hyperbole is in no short having been killed sometime after midnight supply in the coverage of the murder), as "the during a summer thunderstorm. His body, bearing crime of the century" (DeMarigny & Herskowitz,

1 Cathleen LeGrand, Public Services Librarian, Libraries and Instructional Media Services, The College of The Bahamas, P.O. Box N-4912, Nassau, Bahamas. E-mail: [email protected] How to cite this article in APA (6th ed.) style: LeGrand, C. (2010). Another look at a Bahamian mystery: The murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A critical literature review. The International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 16, 92-101. Retrieved from http://researchjournal.cob.edu.bs

© C. LeGrand, 2010. Journal compilation © The International Journal of Bahamian Studies, 2010. C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 93

1990, p. 41). sub-standard gangland thriller, complete with The Books Leasor's own original mobster characters spouting DeMarigny, A. & Herskowitz, M. (1990). A stereotypical tough-guy dialogue. Conspiracy of Crowns: The True Story of the The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes, Bt. is a Duke of Windsor and the Murder of Sir compilation of contemporary news reporting on Harry Oakes. New York, NY: Crown the case. It reprints, in their entirety, news articles Publishers. published in The Nassau Daily Tribune (now The Houts, M. (1972). King's X: Common Law and Tribune) during the investigation of the murder the Death of Sir Harry Oakes. New York, and the trial of deMarigny. NY: William Morrow. A Serpent in Eden is the most recently published Leasor. J. (1983). Who Killed Sir Harry Oakes?. of these books. It is, therefore, able to incorporate Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. the newest theories regarding the case. Its author is particularly interested in reviewing the Marquis, J. (2006). Blood and Fire. Kingston, previously published books so that he can analyze Jamaica: LMH Publishing. their conclusions and debunk the legends and The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes, Bt. (1959). rumours perpetuated therein. Owen's verdict: Nassau, Bahamas: Nassau Daily Tribune. most of these earlier works "suffer from the handicap of not being able to say what the authors Owen, J. (2005). A Serpent in Eden. , thought for fear of libelling those involved who England: Abacus. were still alive" at the time of their publication A Conspiracy of Crowns is an autobiographical (Owen, 2005, p. xiii). account of Alfred deMarigny, Sir Harry's son-in- All of these books, save The Murder of Sir Harry law. It is a highly entertaining, and even more Oakes, Bt. (a compilation of primary source highly far-fetched, report on the case from an documents), suffer from a lack of documentation. insider, in this case, the accused. None has citations. Most have only a rudimentary King's X is an odd combination of murder mystery bibliography, Owen offering the best and most and legal treatise. It offers engaging accounts of substantive one. Marquis' book has no citations, the backgrounds of all the principal characters and no bibliography and, what is worse, no index. a preposterous-sounding "solution" to the murder. This lack of documentation makes it difficult for Houts, a professor of criminal law, is particularly the reader to verify any of the allegations. While interested in the legal aspects of the case and none of these books claims to be scholarly focuses on the conduct of the trial of deMarigny (therefore requiring citations), the arguments the for the murder of Sir Harry. He uses the trial as a authors make would be well-served by such an lens through which to view the differences in the inclusion. Many of these authors hope to Civil Law and Common Law systems. Houts convince readers of their unique and ground- particularly wishes to demonstrate unequivocally breaking theory regarding the murder, or else to the shortcomings of the Civil Law system and its debunk the ground-breaking theories offered by “totalitarian efficiencies” (Houts, 1972, p. 328). others. His ultimate goal: to convince readers of the need Without citations, the reader cannot verify from to protect the U.S. legal system, which he which source a claim comes and some of the considers under attack from “ and sources are, without question, more reliable than his Mafia and Costa Nostra associates” (p. 328). others. Owen notes that he consulted a variety of Speculating on the murderer of Sir Harry is really primary-source documents—letters, manuscripts a side project for the author. and official documents—held in various archives Who Killed Sir Harry? is an even odder specimen. and museums. No other author references such The first four chapters present standard valuable resources—kudos to Owen—but, again, information on the murder and the trial of knowing which evidence came from which deMarigny. The final six chapters take a sharp valuable resource would be of great service to the turn into the realm of fiction. They read like a

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010) C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 94 reader. It is, otherwise, difficult to separate the of deMarigny's other assertions which are usually more authoritative claims from the wholly both unverified and unverifiable. unreliable ones. And even Owen, as do all these The Accused authors, cites claims that apparently come directly DeMarigny's claims are entertaining—and almost from deMarigny himself, who, in his own book, entirely self-serving. Of course, it can be argued, comes off as a less-than-reliable narrator. we all paint the rosiest possible pictures of Owen does an exemplary job demonstrating ourselves in our autobiographies—deMarigny deMarigny's unreliability (making it all the more should not be blamed for doing just that. But the surprising that he would seemingly take some of picture he paints surpasses "rosy" and teeters on deMarigny's claims at face value while shooting "so saintly as to defy belief". gaping holes in others). He compares the two DeMarigny describes himself as "a provocative published accounts deMarigny painted of his life: figure, every inch a maverick..." (DeMarigny, one in More Devil Than Saint (New York, NY: 1990, p. 9), "tall, elegant, well born, but irreverent Beechurst Press, 1946) and the other in about class and wealth" (p. 10). His father-in-law, Conspiracy of Crowns (1990). Owen shows how Sir Harry Oakes "admired his business judgment" deMarigny directly contradicts himself in the two (p. 14) but was frustrated by deMarigny's books, offering completely different accounts of "independence" (p. 9). He compliments himself his early life, his schooling, and his pre-Bahamas for his sympathy with blacks, with Jews, with career. For instance, deMarigny's first wife, anyone impoverished or oppressed. When he isn't Lucie-Alice Cahen disappears entirely in the later making a fortune in the stock market, in spite of book. She earns only brief mention (perhaps his lack of experience or education, he is merited by their very short marriage)—he admits heroically smuggling Jews out of to being her "frequent escort" (DeMarigny, 1946, in two dangerous, cleverly-designed missions of p. 111) but not her husband. His second wife his own devising. (whom he, of course, calls his "first wife" in A Conspiracy of Crowns) receives more coverage By deMarigny's own account, he is a romantic, than his first, all of it unflattering and, frankly, Zelig-like figure, always in the right place at the unkind. According to his account, Ruth right time, meeting important people and, owing Fahnestock was "insecure, demanding and to his unique insouciance and wisdom, seeing jealous" (DeMarigny & Herskowitz, p. 156) and right through them. He saw Hitler speak at a Nazi he claims she trapped him into marrying her. (By rally in Nuremberg and was "disappointed by his most accounts, deMarigny owed Ruth a great deal looks" (p. 119). He was even more unimpressed of money after their divorce and had, perhaps, with the Prince of Wales (later the Duke of particular incentive to be unkind). Windsor), deeming him, at first meeting, a weak man and "an unnecessary person" (p. 15) "a In fact, in A Conspiracy of Crowns, deMarigny pimple on the ass of the British empire" (p. 31). seems to deny that More Devil Than Saint2 even exists. He admits that he had "accepted a contract DeMarigny challenged authority, spoke truth to ... to write an autobiography, giving my account power, championed the downtrodden, outsmarted of the crime and the trial" (p. 253). But he claims his rivals—really, it all becomes too much. One he cancelled the agreement after two alleged has never seen such capacity, taste, application, attempts on his life (deMarigny claims that he was and elegance, as he describes, united. Given the shot at twice during his time in and he "blatant inventions" (Owen, 2005, p. 43), the self- connects the shootings with the book contract). aggrandizement, it becomes hard to take anything Fortunately, as this earlier book certainly does deMarigny has to say seriously. exist, this claim is easily disproven, unlike many The Speculation As the case remains unsolved, each book is, of 2 A French-language deMarigny autobiography, necessity, speculative. In many cases, the Ai-je Tué (Montréal, Québec: Éditions Serge speculation can be difficult to distinguish from the Brousseau, 1946), also exists and is not included reporting. Of particular concern is the fact that in this review

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010) C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 95 most of these books contain a quantity of version of the Oakes case—in 2006. Over 30 suspicious, quoted dialogue. Some of that years passed between his receipt of the “tip-off” dialogue comes directly from the newspaper and the publication of his book. Does Marquis coverage of the trial. The very dedicated can really need to maintain the anonymity of his indeed verify it in The Tribune's compilation of its contact? Surely 30+ years of secrecy is reporting. Such verification is comforting—the sufficient? There is no way for the reader to judge reader knows the dialogue is accurate and, what is the reliability of this "trusted contact" if we know more, that it indeed occurred. Other dialogue, nothing of the informant. likewise appearing in quotation marks (as if it is Again, documentation, corroboration would help verbatim reporting—but from a non-existent the reader make better sense of all the "evidence." transcript), is of frankly dubious provenance. The Victim In his book, for instance, deMarigny relies heavily Sir Harry Oakes must have been a complicated on evidence from "conversations," quoted at character—the reader gets such different accounts length, with mysterious characters who, to his of him as puzzle one exceedingly. Was he a great fortune, have secret information to reveal to "happy, unspoiled character" (Murder, 1959, p. 2) him, information that is always exculpatory to him of "generous spirit" (p. 19)? He was, after all, and incriminating to his rivals. And deMarigny is created a for his “public and philanthropic always, conveniently, alone when he, by sheer service” (Owen, 2005, p. 18). Or was he “brusque chance, meets up with these characters. His and demanding” (p. 15), a "rough, ruthless, purported encounter with Rawlins, the missing uncouth" (Houts, 1972, p. 10), graceless, tasteless, watchman from Westbourne (Sir Harry's home arrogant and rude autocrat who “flew into rages and the place of the murder) is highly coincidental when his wishes were questioned” (p. 11) and and, what is more, completely impossible to who “made more enemies than friends” (p. 11)? substantiate. We have only deMarigny's word that this meeting, where Rawlins places blame for All accounts do agree that Sir Harry was a hard the murder on Harold Christie and his brother, worker whose tenacious search for gold took him Frank Christie, ever took place. all over the world, tolerating harsh conditions and constant disappointments until he finally struck it In similar fashion, both Houts and Marquis rely rich. His fortune, reported to be one of the largest heavily on the word of "anonymous informants." in the British Empire, may have been far smaller Houts spends three pages explaining the than rumor had it, but it was large enough for him importance and legitimacy of reliable confidential to be generous to the deserving. And, at the time informants. While "reliable informants are of his death, he owned at least one-third of the extremely hard to come by," (Houts, 1972, p. 70), island of New Providence (Houts, 1972, p. 12). their testimony is often crucial in the administration of justice. He argues that an The Trial effective legal system depends on the evidence of The presiding judge, Sir Oscar Daly, kept the individuals who "can and will tell what happened" official transcript of the trial in his own hand, (p. 69, emphasis in original). filling two 500-page ledger books. Many of the journalists covering the trial also kept their own Marquis, less interested than Houts in the vagaries personal records of the proceedings, evidence and of the justice system, goes to great lengths to testimony. justify his own reliance on anonymous sources by highlighting, in florid fashion, the "line of Most accounts of the trial focus on the tombstones" (Marquis, 2006, p. 211) linked to the performance of the prosecution and defense murder and to inquiries into it. It is, he reminds attorneys; the unusual presence of two detectives us, simply too dangerous to ask questions about or from , specially summoned by the Duke to know too much about the Sir Harry Oakes case. himself; and the controversial Exhibit J (a print Marquis claims to have received, in early 1969, "a from deMarigny's right little finger, allegedly mysterious tip-off" (p. 5) about the case from a removed from the scene of the crime). trusted contact. Marquis then published his

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010) C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 96

The Attorneys (Murder, 1959, p. 465) and "grievous error[s]" (p. DeMarigny did not get his first choice attorney, 465) that they merited special mention in the Alfred F. Adderley, who ended up serving as Charge to the Jury. (The Charge to the Jury took counsel for the Crown, beside Eric Hallinan, five hours, the jury deliberations, just under two.) Attorney General for the Crown. He was, to his The Even More Notorious Exhibit J good fortune, well served by his eventual A conveniently-perfect fingerprint from the little attorneys, Godfrey Higgs and Ernest Callender. finger of deMarigny's right hand was found on a In all accounts, save one, Higgs and Callender are screen in Sir Harry's bedroom, a place deMarigny particularly commended for their excellent work claimed he had not visited for months. Such a for the defense. They receive high praise for their valuable piece of evidence would clinch stellar, intense cross-examinations of the deMarigny's conviction. If he didn't leave the prosecution's main witnesses: the two Miami print at the time of the murder, how else did it get detectives and, especially, Christie. there? Higgs, on the defense, painstakingly Marquis is the only author to disagree. Oddly, he demonstrated how else: by fabrication. Barker, asserts that Higgs, in fact, went easy on Christie. the fingerprint expert, had lifted the print from the “It would not be the last time [Higgs] would show screen without first photographing it in place, to mercy to [Christie]” (Marquis, 2006, p. 71). document that it had indeed been there. Lifting a DeMarigny himself was pleased with Higgs' print removes all trace of it from where and on performance for the defense. According to his what it was found. Without photographic account, Higgs "demolished" (1990, p. 191) documentation, "the most vital piece of Christie on the stand. One would think that prosecution evidence was detached from its deMarigny would be the first person to express (alleged) original site with no proof that it had disappointment in any sub-standard performance ever been there" (Marquis, 2006, p. 117). by the defense. But deMarigny is perfectly Therefore, Higgs argued, the evidence is suspect pleased: Higgs' advocacy "succeeded beyond our and should be inadmissible. expectation" (p. 191). All accounts of the trial Higgs pressed Barker mercilessly. No, Barker had include a cry of frustration that rose from Christie, to admit that he had not brought a fingerprint under the relentless and withering questioning by camera with him from Miami, nor had he had one Higgs: "For God's sake, Higgs, be reasonable!" flown in from Florida, nor had he tried to borrow (Owen, 2005, p. 124)—not the cry of a man being one in Nassau. No, Barker had to admit that he shown mercy by a friend. had not dusted many other objects for prints, not Houts, our resident legal expert, takes twenty even the headboard to the bed on which Sir pages to analyze, point by point, Higgs' cross Harry's body was found or the visible handprints examination of Christie. He repeatedly describes on the wall of Sir Harry's bedroom. No, Barker Higgs' performance as "effective" and "relentless." had to admit that he had failed to get fingerprint Again, not the description of a man going easy on samples from any number of people known to a witness. Marquis is unique in his belief of any have been in Sir Harry's bedroom after the short-comings in the performance of the defense murder. team. Even more suspicious, the lifted fingerprint lacked The Notorious Detectives from Miami any of the background detail from the screen, Captains James Barker and Edward Melchen, detail that would normally be picked up. When detectives from the Miami Homicide Bureau, asked to demonstrate in the courtroom, Barker were specially summoned to Nassau by the Duke could not replicate a clean lift of the print without of Windsor. They were given control of the high- the background detail. Higgs' conclusion—the profile case and proceeded to underwhelm with detectives lifted deMarigny's fingerprint from their investigative prowess. They bungled and some other object and not from the crucial screen. likely fabricated the fingerprint evidence, Barker denied the accusation and, in the end, prevaricated on the witness stand, and, in all, were Judge Daly allowed Exhibit J into evidence, the cause of so many "extraordinary mistake[s]" leaving it to the jury to believe or discount its

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010) C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 97 veracity. grandmother and her children spent several years All the authors believe that Exhibit J was in Nassau during the war, having been stranded in fabricated and was intentionally "used by Barker the Americas by the sinking of their ship by a in an attempt to frame deMarigny" (Owen, 2005, German sub. p. 236). However, Owen is the only author to Both Owen and Marquis also discount any notion point out that the fact that the Miami detectives of a secret, backroom deal to legalize gambling in tried to frame deMarigny does not mean the Bahamas—gambling was already legal in at deMarigny wasn't guilty. least limited fashion. A tourist-only casino, the THEORIES OF WHODUNIT Bahamian Club, had been operating in Nassau The Mafia Theory since 1920 (Owen, 2005, p. 23). The Bahamian To be frank, several of the theories read like loose Club, in fact, operated illegally until 1939, when rewrites of The Godfather (book published in the Assembly passed a bill 1969, film released in 1972). Leasor's book, in … that allowed to operate [legally] particular, feels like a screenplay treatment of a under certain circumstances. By securing a Mafia thriller. Half of his book is devoted to his Certificate of Exemption (exempt from laws fictitious characters acting out a clichéd prohibiting gambling), a ... casino could melodrama, ending with a Mafia hit on Sir Harry. legally operate under what was, in effect, a Houts, too, offers an elaborate solution with the government license ... [A] certificate was Mafia as culprit. quickly granted to the Bahamian Club The Mafia theories suggest that organized-crime (Block, 1998, p. 31). figures, Meyer Lansky in particular, wanted to However, requests for Certificates of Exemption develop a casino monopoly in the Bahamas. were regularly rejected by the government and the Harold Christie, known to the Mafia from his Bahamian Club operated "in an exclusive way" bootlegging excursions during Prohibition in the for many years (Messick, 1969, p. 74). U.S., was the contact person. With the Duke of The Mafia did eventually develop connections in Windsor on board, Christie only needed to the Bahamas, but likely much later than 1943, the persuade Sir Harry to go along with the wishes of date of Sir Harry's murder. operated the mobsters. Sir Harry, being Sir Harry, successfully in Cuba up until 1944, when Batista "crotchety, vile-tempered, overbearing" (Houts, first lost power. Only after Batista's departure did 1972, p. 64) and obstinate, refused. This "Meyer Lansky [begin] looking for a new base of particular line of speculation concludes with operations" (Messick, 1969, p. 46). By 1963, Mafia goons killing Sir Harry, either on a ship on twenty years after the murder, Meyer Lansky was which they had secretly arrived from Florida reported to be "associated in some way with the ... (through U.S.-Navy and German-U-boat infested casino in the Lucayan Hotel, Grand Bahama waters, during the heightened security and island" (p. 134). paranoia of wartime), or in Sir Harry's bedroom, where his body was found. Houts and Owen both agree that Barker, the fingerprint expert who was so sloppy or Owen and Marquis both do excellent jobs incompetent (or perhaps both), was "mobbed up". debunking the possibility of a mysterious ship By the time of Barker's death in 1952 (he was shot filled with mobsters sailing from Florida to New to death with his own weapon by his son), "it was Providence and back, through heavily-patrolled well known that he had been on Meyer Lansky's waters, without detection. "1943 was the height payroll for a number of years" (Houts, 1972, p. of the Battle of the Atlantic and British and U.S. 71). In fact, the Miami police force was naval patrols were all over the area, hunting U- "particularly corrupt" (Owen, 2005, p. 231) and boats, and all sea traffic was closely monitored" Barker was "undoubtedly in the pocket of Miami's (Marquis, 2006, p. 168). Owen points out that gangsters" (p. 231). But Barker's connection to there were unquestionably "German submarines the Mafia does not itself "supply a sufficiently prowling the waters off Florida" (2005, p. 31). convincing motive for murder" (p. 246). His certainty is based on personal evidence: his

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010) C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 98

So Houts' theory, the Mafia did it on a ship with a most likely Mrs. Dulcibel Henneage, the wife of a boat winch, is rejected even though it comes serviceman. directly from "reliable confidential informants." Proponents of Christie-as-murderer also point to Leasor's gangland-hit theory can be likewise Christie's suspicious account of the night of the rejected. murder—asleep a few doors away while Sir Harry The Mafia-did-it theories are perhaps more a was murdered and set afire, without ever noticing. reflection of the general public's fascination with Even more suspicious, Captain Edward Sears, the the Mafia than they are credible deductions based superintendent of the Bahamas Police Force, on available evidence. Organized crime has been claimed that he saw Christie in downtown Nassau a popular topic of best-selling books and hit on the night of the murder. Sears never waivered movies for decades. One could conclude that the in his certainty that it was indeed Harold Christie theories positing the involvement of the Mafia in he saw round midnight in the passenger seat of a the murder of Sir Harry are designed to appeal to station wagon, miles from Westbourne. the public's taste. It is equally possible that the In his book, Owen appears to give the first serious mob is identified as the culprit simply because look at that station wagon, discovering that, in "the mob" was on everybody's mind at the time of 1943, there were only five such cars registered in publication and was a popular suspect in any New Providence: one owned by Harold Christie, crime—the "zeitgeist" explanation, if you will. one by his brother, Frank, and one by Newell The Harold Christie Theory Kelly, Sir Harry's business manager. (It was Mrs. The Harold-Christie-as-culprit theory rests on the Madeleine Kelly, Newell's wife, who was the first presumption that Christie owed a great deal of to respond to Harold Christie's cries for help on money to Sir Harry. Marquis goes as far as to discovering Oakes' body.) Five station wagons on assert that Christie, already "inclined to the island, 60% of which are owned by deviousness" (Marquis, 2006, p. 159), essentially individuals with a direct connection to Sir Harry? "floated his business on Oakes' money" (p. 159). There lies an interesting angle for further In deMarigny's version, Sir Harry was planning to research—future authors take note. move his family and his finances to Mexico and, As with the mobster-hit men theory, the only before relocating, Sir Harry would call in his evidence pointing to Harold Christie is loans to Christie. circumstantial. His testimony is implausible and Many proponents of the Harold Christie theory his behavior on the stand suspicious. A witness point to his performance on the witness stand as, claims to have seen him where he claims not to if not an indication of outright guilt, at least an have been (downtown, rather than in the guest bed indication that he had something to hide. Christie at Westbourne). He may have owed Sir Harry was "visibly nervous" (Owen, 2005, p. 123): he money, money that Oakes was planning to collect. seemed "tired and uncertain" (p. 122). He "started The Gunshots Theory to sweat, dabbing his forehead with a DeMarigny claims to have found a witness, years handkerchief" (p. 123) while testifying that he after the trial, who “heard four gunshots on the slept through the killing, the fire, and the raging night of the murder” (Marquis, 2006, p. 134). thunderstorm, having woken up only to kill a few (One should be keeping score of the number of mosquitoes. All of these authors, even those who convenient, unnamed sources deMarigny is able have other murderers in mind, look at Christie's to unearth.) behavior during the trial and at his discomfort on the stand, and wonder. On 11 July, Sir Harry's body was flown to the U.S. for burial. Before it arrived in Palm Beach, Christie himself admitted that his "testimony the plane carrying the body was called back to sounded implausible, but he could not help that, Nassau. Sir Harry's casket was taken to the because it was the truth" (Murder, 1959, p. 242). mortuary "where the body was removed and a Almost as soon as he left the stand, rumors began number of photographs were taken" (Murder, circulating that Christie's "implausible" testimony 1959, p. 12). Barker claims the original photos was shielding his relationship with a woman—

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010) C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 99 were spoiled when light got at the film. Marquis intend to call this reader "unreasonable," but there and deMarigny believe that Sir Harry's body was it is.) returned so that bullets could be removed from his Owen insists that there is no evidence for the skull, forever denying the real evidence to future allegation that Erskine-Lindop was deliberately grave robbers. promoted and transferred for the express purposes If Sir Harry was indeed shot, on whom would that of keeping him from investigating the case and of fact throw suspicion? Marquis notes that few suppressing his testimony. In fact, Owen points Bahamians owned guns in the 1940's. Therefore, out, Erskine-Lindop had himself asked for a if a gun was the murder weapon, then the transfer to another colony. His request came after murderer was likely a prominent citizen (say, he received strong criticism for his failure to Harold Christie?) or a professional hit man (say, a control a wage riot that had occurred during the mobster?) as no-one else would have had access summer of 1942. And since no proponents of the to a gun. transfer-to-Trinidad conspiracy theory offer any The gunshots theory renders Harold Christie's evidence, score one for Owen. testimony implausible to ever higher degrees. Dr. Ulrich Oberwarth Christie claims he spent the entire night at Dr. Oberwarth was the medical officer at the Westbourne, waking only for a few pesky Nassau Jail. He was transferred away from his mosquitoes. He could never have slept through position at the Jail shortly after deMarigny's four pesky gunshots. Therefore, Marquis and arrest, and left for Montreal before the trial. deMarigny would argue, the real cause of death According to deMarigny, years after the trial, in had to be covered up in order to protect Christie. another of the convenient, unverifiable The Voodoo Theory coincidences which characterized his life, soi- Sir Harry's body was found covered with a disant, he ran into Oberwarth in , where sprinkling of feathers, leading many to propose Oberwarth assured him that Sir Harry's head that his killing was either part of an unspecified wounds were inflicted by a small-calibre gun, not voodoo ritual or was staged so as to be taken as by a blunt object. such. The most likely explanation is that the However, it is unclear how Dr. Oberwarth would feathers came from one of the pillows from Sir have known any details of the murder. He was Harry's bed. It burned and burst in the fire the physician at the Jail; he examined deMarigny (Owen, 2005, p. 127). The feathers stuck to the upon his arrival at the jail, after his arrest. Dr. charred and bloody corpse—not a tar-and- Oberwarth did not perform the post-mortem feathering as has been rumored over the years. examination of Sir Harry. In fact, Dr. Oberwarth was "barred from the room where the body of THE CONSPIRACY Harry Oakes was autopsied" (Marquis, 2006, p. Allegedly transferred so they couldn't 72). What possible useful information could Dr. testify Oberwarth have had that would have warranted Colonel R. A. Erskine-Lindop his being "removed" from the Bahamas to The Colonel served as the Police Commissioner suppress his evidence? and was promoted and transferred to Trinidad Furthermore, Dr. Oberwarth did in fact give before the trial. He was not recalled to give evidence during the preliminary investigation in evidence. Several authors repeat the Magistrate's Court, appearing for the defense. (undocumented) claim that Erskine-Lindop had The end of the hearing was delayed specifically so "personally .. taken a suspect to the brink of Dr. Oberwarth could appear, as he expected to be tearful confession before he was summarily "absent from the colony" (Murder, 1959, p. 137) withdrawn from the case" (Marquis, 2006, p. during the trial. Dr. Oberwarth testified that, upon 172). "It is beyond reasonable doubt that Erskine- his arrest two days after the murder, deMarigny Lindop knew too much, and was too insistent on had no "burns, scalds or singed hairs on his body pursuing the truth, to be allowed to stay in the that could be detected by the naked eye" (p. 137). Bahamas" (p. 172). (Perhaps Marquis did not (Since Sir Harry's body had been set on fire,

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010) C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 100

"anyone in [the] room at the time of the slaying that no corroboration is offered as the victims would have burned hairs" (p. 81). Investigators, exist only in legend and rumor, not in fact. therefore, looked for such evidence on both Marquis has good reason continually to remind Christie and deMarigny.) This is hardly "get[ting] readers that talking about the Oakes case was him out of the way" (Marquis, 2006, p. 172). perilous, that "loose talk really did cost lives in ... Allegedly killed for "knowing too much" Nassau" (Marquis, 2006, p. 209). If the reader Lyford Cay watchmen believes that witnesses and informants and indeed DeMarigny claims the two unnamed "watchmen the author himself are in danger by discussing and at Lyford Cay" who allegedly witnessed the investigating the case, then perhaps the reader will arrival of the mysterious, and improbable, ship of forgive and even overlook Marquis' reliance on Mafioso both turned up dead right after the anonymous contacts and on uncorroborated, defense discovered their existence: the "old circumstantial evidence. sponger ... had drowned. The other was hanging The alleged instigator from a tree" (DeMarigny & Herskowitz, 1990, p. The Duke of Windsor 81). Owen rightly calls such claims It is a conspiracy theory (almost) universally uncorroborated, convenient to deMarigny, and acknowledged that the Duke was "involved in a "preposterous." wicked conspiracy to hang an innocent man and Betty Renner keep his friend Harold Christie in the clear" Renner, a lawyer from Washington D.C., visited (Marquis, 2006, p. 171). Why would the Duke Nassau in 1950. Shortly after her arrival, she was want to frame deMarigny for the murder? Out of found half-naked and murdered, "bludgeoned to spite toward deMarigny for his insolence? Out of death and dumped upside-down in a banana hole" need to protect the secrets of illicit financial (Marquis, 2006, p. 210). But "the fiction, dealings (rumor was the Duke, Christie and Oakes repeated as fact in newspaper and magazine were, in violation of wartime currency-exchange accounts ... [is] that she went [to Nassau] to controls, funnelling money out of the Bahamas investigate the Oakes murder..." (Kobler, 1959, p. and into the Banco Continental in Mexico City, as 82). There is no evidence supporting this claim. a hedge against an Allied loss), dealings that In fact, Renner's family and friends always might be discovered with a proper investigation of "insisted that she was in Nassau strictly as a the crime? Or out of desire to clear the case tourist" (p. 82). quickly and secure for himself a better colonial The unidentified, unexplained dead posting? Both deMarigny and Marquis claim that in DeMarigny believed the Duke to be a "willing addition to Ms. Renner and the unnamed conspirator" (Owen, 2005, p. 69) in a plot to watchmen, there are other "unexplained deaths" frame him. (Only after the death of the Duke of (DeMarigny & Herskowitz, 1990, p. 81) of Windsor in 1972 did deMarigny make such individuals involved with or inquiring about the allegations public.) Marquis, too, is certain that Oakes murder. [the Duke] was "involved in an enormous [O]ften enough to defy pure chance, someone conspiracy and cover-up and ... was prepared to would arrive to investigate the case, or send an innocent man to the gallows" (Marquis, [would] claim to have information regarding 2006, p. 31-32). the identity of the killer, and that person The Duke did dislike deMarigny, who seemed to would shortly be fished from the bottom of a go to great pains to irritate and offend the well, or found floating in a lagoon, or Governor. And official records indicate that the attached to a knife. Others were summarily Duke went to great lengths to facilitate deported (p. 81). deMarigny's deportation from the Bahamas Who are these mysterious victims? Why can (ordered by the Jury as a rider to the verdict, and neither author offer names or any corroborating approved by the Executive Council). The Duke details? Most readers will come to the conclusion asked the Colonial Office to send a military transport, not easily spared during wartime, to

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010) C. LeGrand. The Murder of Sir Harry Oakes: A Critical Literature Review. 101 remove deMarigny from the island. The Colonial interprets it one way: the Duke did it. Owen Office declined, having other uses for the Royal interprets it another: the Duke, unfriendly to Navy and Air Force. deMarigny and happy to do him a bad turn if he As for the illicit financial dealings, the FBI could, was only a beneficiary of the frame-up of investigated and found "no evidence of money deMarigny and not its instigator. As Owen's book laundering nor of anything else to substantiate the seems the more logical and thoughtful throughout, rumors ... of the millions salted away for the Duke readers may be more willing to give him the of Windsor" in Mexican banks (Owen, 2005, p. benefit of the doubt over the overheated Marquis. 216). THE CONSENSUS "[T]here is little by way of documentary evidence "Anybody dropping dead in the Bahamas from to support the charge [of conspiracy] causes not immediately apparent, rumor is apt to conclusively" (Marquis, 2006, p. 176). Curious link to the Oakes mystery" (Kobler, 1959, p. 82). how that seems to be the way of all the theories That, and even though all the parties are dead and regarding the Oakes case—little documentary most of the landmarks torn down, nobody ever evidence and lots of rumor and speculation. "But seems to tire of writing about, reading about, the circumstantial evidence is heavily weighted speculating about, even making a quick buck off, against [the Duke]" (p. 176). The circumstantial "The Murder of the Century" (Marquis, 2006, p. evidence is there, certainly, but the direction in 5). (Apologies to all the other murders of the which it points is open to interpretation. Marquis century ... ).

REFERENCES Block, A. A. (1998). Masters of paradise: Organized crime and the Internal Revenue Service in the Bahamas. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Kobler, J. (1959, October 24). The myths about the Oakes murder. Saturday Evening Post, 232(17), 19-91. Messick, H. (1969). Syndicate abroad. London, England: Macmillan.

The International Journal of Bahamian Studies Vol. 16 (2010)