"DIRTY DETAILS: EXECUTING U.S. SOLDIERS DURING WW II* by J. Robert Lilly, Professor Sociology Northern Kentucky University Highland Heights, Ky. 41099-6103 606-572-5253 606-572-5342 Fax Lilly@NKU.EDU and Visiting Professor Sociology and Social Policy University of Durham Durham, England 28 November 1995 *The author thanks Peter Davies and Richard A. Ball for helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper. An earlier draft was presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, MA. November, 1995. All rights reserved. ABSTRACT Research on military capital punishment is a neglected topic in criminology. This paper is part of a long-term examination of the execution of U.S. soldiers during WW II. It describes the crimes, defendants and victims for 18 military executions that took place in England, 1943-1945. It also analyses the details of these executions and the burials that followed. The executions were ignominious mechanical rituals that became increasingly truncated events as the military became more familiar with them. Introduction This is the third installment in a long-term examination of U.S. Army executions during WW II's European Theater of Operations (ETO). It builds on previous original archival research which focused on the crimes and punishment of U.S. soldiers in the ETO, 1942-1945. The earlier research concentrated on the demographic features of those executed, including race, crime and country where the executions occurred (Lilly, 1993, 1995; Lilly and Thomson, 1995ab). It has been reported that nearly 80% of the U.S. soldiers executed during E.T.O. were African- Americans, while they comprised no more than 10% of the troops. United States military executions, including its executions for war crimes of selected enemy offenders, is a neglected topic in criminology. Criminology is not alone in this oversight, however. Most fields of scholarship interested in crime have not examined this subject. Rare exceptions are found in history and the judiciary. Alotta's (1989) Civil War Justice: Union Army Executions Under Lincoln, is a much overlooked and important study of military executions. Babington's (1983) For the Sake of Example: Capital Courts Martial 1914-18, the truth, is a study of the British Army's official records of a total of 346 officers and men summarily executed at dawn following their convictions in the field between the outbreak of WW I and the end of March 1920. Tusa and Tusa's (1984) and Taylor's (1992) treatment of WW II's Nuremberg trial, while thorough studies of "the trial of the century" nearly fifty years after the fact (Post, 1995), offer nothing comparative on war crime trials as studies in capital punishment. The neglect of this aspect of contemporary military social control is most surprising for three primary reasons: (1) the history of capital punishment in the U.S. and its importance to numerous areas of scholarship, including criminology, (2) the examination and re- examination of the myriad aspects of past wars, especially during the 50th anniversary of the end of WW II , (3) and the fact that the military is the only institution other than civilian courts, where the death penalty can and has been imposed. This neglect can not be explained by the argument that U.S. military executions have been beyond criminologists opportunities to be aware of the subject. For at least the last decade the U.S. Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics' widely circulated annual bulletin, Capital Punishment, has without failure, reported that "An additional 160 executions have been carried out under military authority since 1930 (See U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics 1984-1992). The fact that between 1798-1989 the United States has used its armed forces in approximately 215 excursions abroad, involving millions of conscripted and voluntary citizens who have been subject to military justice, suggests that it is time to systematically study this topic (Congressional Research Service, 1989). While it would be rewarding to explore why this aspect of WW II has not been studied among those who have so splendidly documented the end of the "Good War," the purpose of this paper is more limited (Ambrose, 1994; Terkel, 1984; Adams, 1994). Here the focus is on the "dirty details" of the executions with an eye to making a contribution to understanding what Hughes (1971) called "dirty work," and what Johnson has aptly labelled "death work" (Johnson, 1990). This means we are interested in comparative issues. Were the WW II executions in any significant ways different from the private or "hidden" civilian executions of then and now? Were they indeed "hidden" from the public and the military communities? If so how ? How were the executions managed? Were the executions what Johnson calls "mechanical rituals" (1990:29)? Were these executions any less tortuous and brutal than those we know about almost daily? While not all of these questions can be answered here, a beginning and a contribution to the comparative study of capital executions id presented. At one level this is a first time report of descriptive data on who, where and how American soldiers were executed. At another level it places the executions in historical perspective. To do this I probe several aspects of the executions themselves as they were expressions of the "imported context" of what historians and journalist have termed the "American Occupation of Britain" (cf Reynolds, 1995; Rooney, 1995). It is a beginning by which the "dirty details" of military and civilian executions can be compared and interpreted. I am especially concerned with the military's organization and methods of executions, and accompanying embedded symbolic meanings. "Imported Context" What is meant by imported context is akin to discussions of the development of prison culture, and what colonialization and legal development scholars know as "cultural" and "legal imperialism" (Williams,, 1944/64). Of the two models offered on the development and context of the justice system culture, importation is favored over developmentalism. The latter term is more applicable in situations involving first world impositions of legal structures in developing countries circa the 1950- 1975's "legal development movement." "Importation" captures what occurred in Britain during WW II following the Visiting Forces Act, 1942 (hereafter VFA). It was the VFA which permitted the American authorities exclusive jurisdiction over members of their own armed forces while in Britain, a process not unlike the importation and imposition of cultural hegemony by a colonial power. In this instance, however, a former colony imposed its legal structure on its own soldiers in the "foreign" homeland. This meant that not only were American forces to be tried in U.S. military courts in the British Isles, British witnesses in such trials would themselves be subject to U.S. military justice procedures. At the heart of this development was a question raised in Parliament before the VFA was approved. It asked if the Act would ,in fact, be an endorsement of the legal procedures in the segregated U.S. Army. In a question directed to Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Tom Drieberg, MP for Maldon, Essex, asked: ...that an unfortunate result of the presence here of American Forces has been the introduction in some parts of Britain of discrimination against negro troops; and whether he [Churchill] will make friendly representations to the American military authorities asking them to instruct their men that the colour bar is not a custom of this country and that its non-observance by British troops or civilians should be regarded with equanimity (Smith, 1987:46) . Put simply, the VFA Act and Bill permitted the U.S. authorities to use its Manual for Courts-Martial (1928) as the only legal umbrella under which troops would be tried and punished for offenses, whether they be against British civilians and its military personnel, or against U.S. military personnel. This measure was passed fairly easily in both Houses of Parliament. According to Smith (1987:184) there was some debate which expressed anti-American sentiment and concerned about whether the American military code was severe enough. This occurred despite the fact the Code's Article 92 specified a sentence of death or life imprisonment for rape. In England a death sentence for rape would have been most ironic and tragic because rape had not been a capital offense in England and Wales since 1861. Methods The data for this project came from executed soldiers' trial transcript files, National Archives, Suitland, MD. In addition to the trial transcripts, each solider's file contained an assortment of data from the mundane military paper trail of routing documents to various types of letters including those to mothers, President Roosevelt, General Eisenhower, U.S. Senators and Congressmen, siblings and lovers. The more macabre material includes bullets, uniform stripes ("busted" before execution), bits of wood used as a weapon, pictures of victims and crime scenes, autopsy reports, hotel room keys, train tickets and luggage claim stubs. This paper examines the "dirtiest details" of the military justice processes of capital punishment. The data are from the section of the condemned's file identified as the "Execution Proceedings." This document contained not only the soldier(s), name, Selective Service Number, date of crime, charge and date of execution, but also a plethora of details about the immediate "death work" at hand. For ease of data management and clarity this information is organized around the executions and burials of the eighteen soldiers. A word of caution is in order. While the trial transcripts and related files for only three cases are missing, other sources of information on these deaths includes the soldiers names, age, race, date of crime and execution, and descriptive information about the victim(s). Because of this good fortune, it is possible to report sensitive control information from WW II that heretofore has not been made pubic knowledge. Indeed, at one point this information was classified by the military as secret. But the names of executed soldiers are not reported here. This decision is based on the logic that names are less important than trends. More importantly, the reluctance to divulge this information has less to do with its research value historical value, and more to do with its news value and potential impact on surviving members. There is ample reason to believe that the family of some of the deceased do not know how their loved ones died. Prior national publicity from the New York Times on this research has generated considerable media interest and I have selected not to be the bearer of bad news, at least not at this juncture (Clines, 1993:14). As a result of the national press attention one newspaper, for example, wanted the names and crimes of soldiers who had been executed in Michigan. While the European Theater of Operations was divided into several major and minor constituent parts including time, distance and movement of troops, this paper concentrates on the executions in England both prior to and after D-Day. This decision is based on the logic that while England was indeed a target of Germany bombing, it did not have any of the disruptions of social order associated with a "moving front." For the United States Army's "occupation" of England, it was therefore a more stable context, one where the operation of military justice could be less imperiled by the disruptions and uncertainties of the battle found on the continent. The conditions in England were, nevertheless, a crisis in the full meaning of the word. More than 60,000 London residents died during the blitz between September 1940 and May 1941 (Longmate, 1973/1988: 84). One general null hypothesis guided the work reported here: There would be no differences in the executions and burial of the condemned soldiers in the European Theater of Operations. The data reported here are the first step in testing this hypothesis. Before discussing the data it will be helpful to summarize the crimes for which the soldiers were executed. The Crimes: England Between 1942 and D-Day 1944, more than a million and a half U.S. soldiers were stationed in the United Kingdom, and while there is not a complete account of the number of crimes they committed, victims and punishment, the U.S. Army reports that during this time eighteen soldiers were executed in England for murder, rape, and rape/murder. As indicated in Table 1, the largest category of crime was murder (8), followed by rape (6), and murder/rape (4). African American soldiers were disproportionately represented in executions for each of these crimes. They represented 50% of the solders executed for murder, 83 percent for rape and 25 percent for murder/rape. Overall, African American soldiers comprised 56 percent of all of the soldiers executed at Shepton Mallet. Combined with the execution of Latinos, minority executions grow to 72 percent of the eighteen military executions in England. Table 1 about here. Most starkly unrepresentative is the absence of any white executions for rape. In Table 1 it is clear that no white soldiers were executed for this crime. Indeed, minority soldiers comprise the entirety of executions for rape. See Lilly and Thompson (1995b) for a discussion of the influence of "sexual racism" on the execution of black soldiers for rape in England. (Cf also Lay, 1993). The data in Table 2 are about victims. Sixty-one percent of the victims were females, 94 percent were white. Of the 6 percent of the victims who were black, all were members of the U.S. Army. The distribution of civilian and military victims was 75 percent and 25 percent, respectively. Table 2 about here. The Executions Place Consistent with the historical transition from public to private executions (Lofland, 1977; Gatrell, 1994 and Linebaugh, 1992), each of the eighteen executions in England occurred within the walls of the centuries- old, stone constructed Shepton Mallet Prison, sixteen miles from the Roman city of Bath, Somerset. Constructed when James I was King of England and Sir Walter Raleigh and William Shakespeare were alive, Shepton Mallet was first envisaged as a response to an Act of 1609 requiring all counties to have their own Houses of Correction (Disney, 1992:11) . By the time war had been declared by Britain against Italy and Germany in September, 1939, Shepton Mallet was vacant, but by early 1940 it had been leased to the British Army as secure premises for its many European defaulters. Two years later it was taken over by the American Forces to house their many offenders. The title of the United States troops stationed at Shepton Mallet Military Prison was the 6833rd Guard House Overhead Detachment, later to be known as the Disciplinary Training Center No. 2. It also housed U.S. Medical Personnel. The prison's first American Commandant was Col. James P. Smith of the 707th. Military Police Battalion. A doctor in charge of the Medical Unit was a Captain Stanley B. Alschuler. His assistant commander was Lieutenant Milton B. Asbell, the prison dentist. It also served during WW II as a depository for many of the UK's national treasures. A very severe and strict regime reigned for soldiers found guilty of any military or civilian offense. One of the first projects for the Army staff was to build an "execution house." It was attached to the side of the main accommodation blocks and was built with red bricks. Every other part of the prison was built of the local grey stone, making the brick extension to be grossly out of character with its surroundings (Disney, 1986:73). Official Instructions Key dimensions of the mood and atmosphere surrounding Army executions in England can be gleaned from the condemned soldiers' files. On the night of the first execution at Shepton Mallet prison, the Commandant, announced by name the twenty-one attending personnel, and then stated without elaboration in only one hundred forty-one (141) words: I, Lt. Col. T.W. Gillard, Commandant of Disciplinary Training Center # 1, am having the recorder note the fact that all persons required to be present at the execution of David Cobb pursuant to General Court-Martial Order Number 4, European Theater of Operations, are present. There are in excess of the five witnesses. The Provost Marshall, Colonel Whittaker of the Southern Base Section is present. The Executive of Disciplinary Training Center Number 1, is present. The three medical officers selected are present. The Chaplain is present. The Civilian Executioner is present. The Reporter is present now taking the notes on the remarks that I am now making. The party will now be organized by Lieutenant Poland, my Executive and will move to the Execution Chamber. The time is now 18 minutes before one o'clock A.M. or 0042 hrs, the 12th day of March 1943. This was the only execution Gillard supervised in England. His message was, in the words of Johnson (1990), mechanical. They focused on names, ranks, responsibilities, and time. The next eight executions were under the supervision of another commandant. His first execution contained the following instructions to the eighteen personnel present, excluding the condemned: "Gentlemen, I am Major James C. Cullens, Commander of Disciplinary Training Center #1. It is my duty to supervise the execution. The procedure prior to execution has been carried out. You gentlemen will follow myself, the two enlisted guards and Colonel Whitaker with the Chief Medical Officer. Colonel Whitaker will indicate your places in the death chamber." According to the verbatim records of this execution, "At this point Major Cullens then read the Procedures for Execution of the Death Sentence by Hanging, Hq., Southern Base Section dated 7 March 1943." He said: "It is a rather solemn occasion when you take a man's life legally or in any other manner. I shall expect that each of you shall conduct yourself with that fact in mind. If there are any questions, I will be glad to answer them, if I may. If there are no questions, I shall assume that all of us are familiar with our duties for this evening." Following the protocol used with the first execution, the assembly recessed until 0032 hrs at which hour the assembly was further addressed by the Commandant as follows: I believe the proper procedure would be for everyone in the execution chamber, other than the two guards ready to support the prisoner, stand at attention while the General Court Martial Order is read and at the completion of that reading to continue to stand at attention until the Chaplain begins his prayer at which time you may stand at ease uncovering [your head] at the moment the Chaplain starts his prayer. The witnesses who have been detailed at this execution will keep their eyes on the prisoner at all times until the execution is completed (Transcript No. 2). The varied nuances between the first and second official instructions expressed concern for greater specificity, a slight touch of recognition for the graveness of the moment, and some doubt about the proper procedure as witnessed by Cullens use of the term "believe." While Gillard's instructions were short, crisp, and without elaboration, Cullens' were more detailed to the point of directing the official witnesses not only when to begin and end standing attention, but to "keep their eyes on the prisoner at all times..."(Transcript, No. 2, 1943). Unlike Gillard, Cullens nodded ever so slightly to acknowledge that taking a life is a solemn experience under any circumstances. Given the fact that both soldiers were guilty of murdering military personnel, certainly not a new offense in the military, it is surprising Cullens expressed any hesitancy about "the proper procedure." This is understandable, however, because the U.S. War Department did not prepare its Pamphlet 27-4, Procedure for Military Executions, until after the Army's had already hanged at least one soldier in Australia in [4 Nov. 1942] and one in England [12 March 1943], respectively. Pamphlet 27- 4 was published June 12, 1944, by order of the Secretary of War and may not have reached Cullens until after his first execution on 25 June, 1943. By Cullens's next execution (14 December, 1943), his instructions changed slightly from using the term "uncovering" to "that you remove your hats and bow your heads in prayer" (Transcript No. 3, 14 December 1943). He also added: "There are quite a large number [22 counting the prisoner and Cullens] of us here tonight and we will have to stand a little closer together. Those who go up on the right, as you go in past the door, go in after the execution party has arrived and go up as far as you can and be sure to move back out of the way as the executioner must do his work." These comments addressed, first, a matter of manners and decorum, and then, an issue of space management. Cullens' third and the Army's fourth execution at Shepton Mallet contained two slight variations on his previous instructions. On 10 February 1943, almost eleven months to the day of the first execution on 12 March 1943, he stated that for those not familiar with the proceedings, they should be warned of the solemnity of the occasion, and "should any of you feel faint or feel that you are about to become ill, do not hesitate to step from the execution chamber into the adjoining anteroom" (Transcript No. 4, 1944). The records contain no evidence Cullens or anyone else was concerned about the condemn's feelings. Between the fourth (10 February 1944) and the ninth execution (11 August, 1944) at Shepton Mallet, Cullens supervised one of the two deaths by musketry, and the first of three double executions by hanging. His instructions for the execution by shooting most starkly reveal the military's mechanical approach to these matters. He stated to the personnel present: Gentlemen, let me have your attention please. As you know the personnel here this morning is to carry out the sentence of a General Court Martial, to inflict death upon Private Alex F. Miranda, who was convicted of Violation of the 92nd Article of War, murder. This is the first time we have carried out the death penalty here by shooting. Our procedures is a little bit easier and we hope to carry it through in the proper manner. The witnesses will leave here, following my departure, and assigned to your proper places by Captain Boye. There will be nothing to do except to observe the proceedings. The Medical personnel, after the volley has been fired, will be directed to make their examination. Now, this is not an occasion for any levity or joking of any sort, and I will like to say that I appreciate utmost silence by the witnesses particularly during the proceedings. Those of you who have not yet had your breakfast, may get it in our mess immediately following the execution. Are there any questions? It took Cullens only one hundred eighty words to explain that the condemn's execution was for murder, that it ought to be easier than previous executions, that no levity and silence were deeply appreciated, and that breakfast would be served immediately after the death. Beginning with the tenth Shapton Mallet execution (12 October, 1945) and the eleventh of the ETO, the Commandant in charge was Major Herbert R. Laslett. He provided the official instructions for six executions, the first of which indicated they had become so routinized that "It will not be necessary for me to go into any great detail" (Transcript No. 11). He did, however, repeat the admonishment: "This is a solemn occasion" and "to avoid any laughing or joking..." By his third execution (8 January 1945), the official instructions were truncated to one hundred three (103) words: Gentlemen, let me have your attention. You gentlemen know why we are present here, therefore it will not be necessary for me to go into any great detail. This is a solemn occasion and not a time for levity. I request that there be no laughing or joking during the proceedings. I prefer no talking except as required." When we leave, the execution party will follow me and will be directed to their proper places in the execution chamber. Should any of you feel dizziness or faintness, do not hesitate to walk into the room adjoining the chamber. Are there any questions? Overall the official instructions varied little from the first to the last execution in England. They did become more brief and, on occasion, more a reflection of the prison's commandants individual concerns, than alterations in official military policy. The emphasis was on expediency with concern for sentiment held to a minimal, and only this for the sake of the "dirty workers." Or, in the words of one of the witnesses, "Everything seemed to express the old Army's adage of "Give the man a fair trial, then hang the son-of-a-bitch," or in the words allegedly spoken at the beginning of Bristish military trials, "Bring in the guilty bastard." Method The method of executing of US troops during WW II fell under the guidance of the 1928 Manual for Courts-Martial. In discussing this matter in April, 1945, before the end of hostilities in Europe, Brigadier General Joseph F. Battley, Deputy Chief of Staff for Service Commands wrote: Although the method of execution of a United States Army court- martial sentence of death may be either hanging or shooting, in the discretion of the court, almost invariably the court prescribes hanging. The Manual for Courts-Martial merely states that "Hanging is considered more ignominious than shooting and is the usual method, for example, in the case of a person sentenced to death for spying, for murder in connection with mutiny, or for a violation of the A.W. [Articles of War] 92. Shooting is the usual method in the case of a person sentenced to death for a purely military offense, as sleeping on post." (Par. 103a, p. 93.) This provision should not be construed as prescribing hanging, but apparently it has been the misinterpreted (Battley, 1945). Hanging, therefore, was not only viewed by the U.S. Army as a utilitarian means of inducing death, but it was also a symbolic expression of ignobility and disgrace. It was the preferred method of execution for U.S. soldiers in England. (British civilians were hanged, royalty were beheaded). In fact, only two soldiers were put to death in England with "musketry," both for shooting non-commissioned U.S. military personnel. Enigmatically, however, the first soldier executed in England, an African-American from Alabama, was hanged for shooting his white officer of the day, a first lieutenant (Lilly, 1995). Three of the hangings were "doubles." While hanging was widely employed by the U.S. Army, it was considered to be impractical. Writing in April, 1945, Battley (1945) stated the following: Experiences during the present war, both within the United States and in theaters of operations, emphasize the impracticability of executing a military death sentence by hanging. In most instances there are neither existing facilities nor experienced personnel to execute the sentence in this manner....[T]he erection of a scaffold (which frequently is not available) and preparations for hanging consume an unreasonable amount of time, especially during war. To explore the personnel dimension of the impractical aspects of hanging as a form of execution during WW II, we turn to the English executioners. Executioners Unlike the circumstances surrounding a Southwest Pacific Ocean Theater hanging where "...it was necessary to transport an experienced man from Sydney, Australia, as far as New Guinea, 2,225 miles, to effectuate a hanging..." (Battley, 1945), England was an ally with a long, rich, and ignominious history of official hangings. This tradition continued into the 1940s (it did not end until 1965) when England employed a number of experienced civilian hangmen on an "as needed" basis. At the time the US Army scheduled its first execution in England for 12 March, 1943, Thomas William Pierrepoint had been the Official Hangmen," or "Number One," for a number of years after succeeding his brother, Henry Albert Pierrepoint, who had held the same title. Between 1946-1956 this mantle was passed on to Henry Albert's son, Albert, who as a result of the Nuremberg trials became " the world's most famous executioner." After the first Shepton Mallet execution, Thomas William Pierrepoint was hired by the US Army for at least thirteen additional hangings, possibly fifteen. (The records for two of the military hangings England do not contain the names of the executioners). Two executions were imposed with firing squads, for a total of eighteen (18) executions during WW II in England, or 26 percent of the ETO's 70 executions. On six occasions of hanging U.S. soldiers at Shepton Mallet, Thomas William Pierrepoint's assistant was his nephew, Albert. Another assistant, Alexander Riley, assisted three times, as did Herbert Morris. The last U.S. Army execution in England occurred on June 15, 1945, more than a full month after the official end of hostilities on the continent. The issue of practicality concerned more than the availability of experienced hanging personnel; it also involved the techniques of hanging. At issue here was the speed and efficiency of military hangings. According to a conference attended by Brig. Gen. Joseph V. Dillion, Deputy Provost Marshal General, circa 1945, there were several "instances of amateur hangings which he was obliged to witness, as where, through inexperience of the hangman, the condemned was tortured by strangulation, or had to be hanged again" Battley, 1945). The particular nuances of the U.S. Army methods of hanging were avoided in England and commented on by Albert Pierrepoint, one of England's civilian hangmen until 1956: The American military prison was Shepton Mallet, and they were allowed most of the American customs except the method of execution: no standard drop, no hangmen's knot, but a variable drop on a modern noose suspend from a British gallows and designed to impart instantaneous death (Pierrepoint, 1974:143-144). The American "hangmen's knot," otherwise known as the "cowboy noose," consisted of a bulky wrap of thirteen twists of stiff hemp rope which formed a loop that was slipped over the condemned head and around his neck. Upon release of the trap door with drop of no variation, it was not uncommon for the victim to strangle to death. In some instances, the condemned were decapitated. The English method, based on a calculus of drop, the victim's weight, and a metal ring woven into a rope's end, was intended and thought to break the neck, causing instant death. Instant death , however, may have been another matter altogether. Surviving execution records for the hangings in England indicate that the time between the springing of the trap door and the reporting of death varied considerably. The first soldier's execution required only 3 1/2 minutes until death was officially announced by three U.S. medical officers. (He was left hanging for one hour more as was the custom in England). The time lapse for the next to last U.S. serviceman executed in England was 22 minutes. The average lapse of time for 15 of the 16 hangings was 14.8 minutes. (The data are missing for one hanging). It remains unclear whether this signifies delay in examining the executed man, or a true measure of time to expire. Time, Food and Drink U.S. Army's hanging customs involved more than technical detail and hired executions, they also included time, food, drink, and the reading of the charge. Again, according to Albert Pierrepoint the executions were "American style" (1974: 140). It was generally carried out at about one o'clock in the morning. Another custom which was strange to me was the practice of laying on a mighty feast before the execution. We were eating badly in this country at that time, but at an American execution you could be sure of the best running buffet and unlimited canned beer. The part of the routine which I found it hardest to acclimatise myself to was the, to me, sickening interval between my introduction to the prisoner and his death. Under British custom I was working to the sort of time where the drop fell between eight and twenty seconds after I had entered the condemned cell. Under the American system, after I had pinioned the prisoner, he had to stand on the drop for perhaps six minutes while his charge sheet was read out, sentence spelt out, he was asked if he had anything to say..and after that I was instructed to get on with the job. Executioners were not the only working personnel at the hangings. Chaplains were also present and had specific work to do. Chaplains Perhaps chaplains were the cleanest of the dirty workers at the Shepton Mallet executions. As a profession, their historical responsibilities has been the moral supervision of troops (Corvisier and Childs, 1994:126- 130). The backgrounds of the nine chaplains at Shepton Mallet are for now unknown, but if sixteenth century antiquity is any guide, they may have been in the military as the result of ad hoc recruitment. Bishops sometimes had the opportunity to rid himself of the most questionable clerics in his diocese by putting them in the military (Corviser and Child,1994:127). Their duties for WW II executions required providing "consolation and ministration" to the condemned (Transcript No. 1, 1943), following the prison commandant into the death chambers, asking if the condemned had any last words, and praying as the death trap was sprung. Chaplains were the last person to whom the soldier spoke. Sometimes he asked the chaplain to write to his family. They were not, however, as will be illustrated, beyond being a compliant party to a most ignoble denial of human dignity. Their presence and behavior, whether voluntary or compelled by military command, served at times to give a modicum of kindness and consideration to otherwise brutal executions. At the first execution immediately following the reading of General Court-Martial (GCM) Order No. 4, and four days before his death, the prisoner, David Cobb, an African-American, was placed in a death cell adjacent to the death chamber, and kept under continuous guard until the time of his execution. Also immediately after the reading of the GCM Order No. 4, the prisoner was allowed to have the ministration of Chaplains Jones, Hutchinson and Morgan J. O'Brien, Captain. Cobb selected O'Brien to accompany him during the proceedings in the death chamber. O'Brien visited Cobb each day until his death, and stayed with him four hours prior to his execution. On the afternoon of his death O'Brien held Mass for Cobb, whose father was a Baptist minister. The last words Cobb heard were O'Brien's prayer, which is recorded fully in the Commandant's official report. Upon O'Brien's "Amen," the Commandant gave a silent signal and the civilian executioner sprung the trap door. In his summary report Shepton Mallet's Commandant Gillard wrote: In this connection, I wish to highly commend Chaplain O'Brien for his superior efficiency and the high quality of his spiritual ministration to the prisoner. His service as a Chaplain was performed with great dignity and courage. It was very evident, to me and the witnesses, that the spiritual help and guidance by Chaplain O'Brien fortified the prisoner for the ordeal of execution. The prisoner marched erectly from the death cell to the death chamber and appeared to be calm and cool up to the moment of the execution. Chaplain O'Brien administered the rites of extreme unction immediately following the execution (Transcript No. 1). By the time O'Brien assisted in his next execution, just four days past the anniversary of his first, he was a major. The record on the ministration to the spiritual needs of the second condemned soldier at Shepton Mallet is less detailed under the new prison commandant. There is no evidence of the amount, or quality, of time spent by the two chaplains with the soldier in the days leading up to his execution. The record of procedure, however, does state that "the witnesses will continue to stand at attention while the Chaplain begins his prayer." And this record yields the names of the two chaplains who were in the death chamber, as are the exact words of their brief prayers. The last words the soldier heard were "Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." Again, upon silent signal the Assistant Executioner proceeded with the execution. By the third Shepton Mallet execution, however, the chaplain is not mentioned in the procedures, nor is there any indication that while present and asking, "Private Davis, have you anything to say to me as chaplain," that he prayed before the trap door was sprung. And the Commandant makes no mention of the Chaplain's work in his official report. The next execution record reports that the Chaplain was present, and that the witnesses should remove their hats and bow their heads when he prays, but what he said is unrecorded. Again, the chaplain's last words were followed by the silent signal. For all additional executions in England, except the last, the official records indicate the presence of the chaplain(s), but not the words of his prayer. For the last Shepton Mallet execution, General Prisoner Aniceto Martinez repeated the Act of Contrition after Chaplain George E. Montie, Captain. From the first to the last execution, the attention given to the spiritual needs of the prisoner seem to wane, at least as far as the official record can be taken as factual evidence. The report for the first execution contains a thorough review of the chaplain's work, and indicates the condemned had the benefit of at least three chaplains for four days prior to his death, including the constant attention of a Chaplain for the last four hours of his life, and a Mass even though Cobb was a Baptist. Seventeen executions and two years, four months later, the official report makes no mention of a chaplain except to indicate his presence and last prayer with the condemned. For each execution by hanging, the Chaplain's last words was the preamble to the silent death signal to the executioner. The Burials The sociology of death literature is rich with discussions of the symbolic importance of burial rituals, including where and how the dead are interned (Aries, 1981; Litten, 1991; Sudnow, 1967; Prior, 1989). The same observation can be made about the initial burial of the executed American soldiers in England. In each instance, the body of the soldier was collected at the site of death by one or more members of the Grave Registration Company (hereafter GRC). A receipt was signed for the body by the GRC who then transported it directly to Brookwood Cemetery, Surrey, outside London, as the first place of internment for the eighteen executed soldiers. At least this was the route to burial for the first nine of the eighteen executions. The reasoning behind using Brookwood or a cemetery nearer the place of execution, remains to some extent shrouded in mystery, but not entirely. Ignominious deaths suggest ignominious burials. Brookwood Cemetery was founded in 1852 by "The London Necropolis & National Mausoleum Company." Its intention was to accommodate all the dead of London. Consequently, it was big, covering about 2,000 acres. It had two dedicated railway stations with direct connections from London's Waterloo train station. Today it has about one quarter of a million recognized graves. Unlike a church cemetery which would be blessed and thus hallowed ground and for the U.S. Army's dishonored dead, an inappropriate place for an ignominiously executed criminal, Brookwood was not so restricted. Burial plots there were sold to all comers. Parishes, individuals, and government agencies all purchased land there. The military sections originated in 1917, and were administered by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. These sections were much extended during WW II. It seems that military control was absolute in these regions, and it was expedient to use this site for the sensitive burials. On January 14, 1942, the Adjutant General in Washington sought permission from the American Battle Monuments Commission (hereafter ABMC) to bury any personnel from the Armed Forces who might die in England in the American cemetery which had been established after WW I at Brookwood in Surrey. This cemetery contained 468 dead from that war, and it had been fully landscaped as a permanent resting place. General John J. Pershing, renowned First War commander and then Chairman of the ABMC, replied in the affirmative on January 24. Initially, the empty spaces in existing rows were used; the first burial took place on April 8 in Grave 11 of Row 7, Plot C. It was for Warren H. Irwin of the U.S. Navy. All five spaces in this row were filled that Spring, together with five in Row 7 of Plot D on the opposite side of the memorial chapel. As the war continued it was obvious that a more lasting solution had to be found, and additional ground was acquired in July 1942 for a new Plot E designed to hold 250 graves. Administrative control of the cemetery was vested in the U.S. Military Attache, but in September 1942 this was transferred to the Commanding General for Services of Supply for the European Theater. At this time most of the casualties were caused by aircraft crashes, but the burial pace was such that fourteen new graves were opened that month alone. Additional plots were added, lettered up to S, and by 1944 Brookwood contained 3,633 American dead. On August 31, 1944 Brookwood Cemetery was closed to further honorable burials, which were then continued at Cambridge National Cemetery, which had been activated on December 7, 1943. It was better situated to cater for the increasing number of fatalities suffered in carrying the air offensive to Germany. Brookwood Cemetery, however, continued to play a role in the death work required for executions, one that is compatible with the ignominious executions of U.S. soldiers at Shapton Mallet. While closed to routine, or honorable military burials, Brookwood's place for the dishonored dead was a special Plot X. It was located "behind stage" on the outside perimeter of the cemetery and adjacent to tool sheds and a compost heap, and large enough to hold approximately one hundred graves (Ramsey, 1988). As the executions continued, it was still used for these dead. However, the bodies of the condemned were no longer collected and transported to Brookwood by GRC personnel because there were no military personnel any longer assigned to this site. Instead, the bodies were collected by GRC assigned to Cambridge, transported to Cambridge, and then transported again, this time to Brookwood's ignominious plot. This journey, sometimes by train but usually by ambulance or truck, for the last nine of the eighteen dead involved traveling more than 100 miles further than the first nine to their first internment. Once at Brookwood, graveside rituals were left to the discretion of the individual members of the Graves Registration Company. Whether chaplains were present has yet to be determined, though this was common practice for the honored dead. The executed soldiers were buried in a 95- cent cotton, Sears and Roebuck, mattress cover. Plot X does not appear in any literature and the American Battle Monuments Commission could not enlighten this research on this point. The ignominious journey for most of these soldiers was, however, not over. At war's end it was decided by the ABMC to establish a permanent American WW II cemetery in the British Isles at Cambridge. This meant that all of the U.S. WW II dead in Brookwood, including those in special Plot X were to be exhumed. Following a Paris conference of the American Graves Registration Command, March 16, 1948 , this process began before mid 1948 and was completed by May 1949. As first reported to the American public by Huie's (1954) The Execution of Private Slovik, all of the dishonored from the European of Theater of Operations (erroneously reported by Huie to be 96), were exhumed and reinterred in a walled-off, secret section of the WW I Oise-Anise American Cemetery at Fere-en Tadenonis, France. For the dishonored in Brookwood, the exhumations began on May 26 and were completed by July. Contrary to Huie (1954) and (Ramsey (1988), not all of the Army's eighteen executions in England made the journey to France. The ETO's first execution, an 21 year-old African American from Dothan, Alabama, executed on 12 March 1943, returned home to a city-owned cemetery in 1949. His mother and estranged wife had requested his body only ten days after his death. Today he is buried in an unmarked grave just a few feet from his parents. Discussion and Conclusions Previous research on civilian "death work" reports capital executions to be mechanical rituals, void of any real meaningfulness (Johnson, 1990). The present work goes beyond these conclusions and reports comparative findings on the executions of U.S. soldiers during the European Theater of Operations, WW II. There is little, if any, differences in the details reported by Johnson and our findings. The executions in England were mechanical exercises, detailed to the point of ordering the witnesses to keep their eyes on the condemned prisoner. Compared to English civilian executions which were carried out early in the morning without a feast and numerous witnesses, some of the U.S. Army executions had a sense of spectacle. The executioners were hired civilians who, for a modest fee, dispatched the soldiers by hanging upon a silent signal following a chaplain's prayer. The burials, at least the ones in Brookwood Cemetery and later in France, were ignominious arrangements. The dishonored soldiers were temporarily interned in unconsecrated soil next to a tool shed. Later, most of these were buried in a special plot in an U.S. owned WW I cemetery under the management of the American Battle Monument Commission. Future research will focus on the role played in these executions by military medical officers, and the last words of the condemned for all of the capital deaths in the European Theater of Operations. References Alotta, R. I. 1989 Civil War Justice: Union Army Executions under Lincoln. Shippensburg, Pa.: White Mane Publishing Co. Ambrose, S. E. 1994 D-Day June 6, 1944: The climatic Battle of World War II. New York: Simon and Shuster. Aries, P. (1981) The Hour of Our Death. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Babington, A. 1983 For the Sake of Example: Capital Courts Martial 1914- 18, the truth. New York: St. Martin's Press. Battley, J. F. 1945 Letter to Lt. Col. Barbner-Smith re: Method of execution of U.S. Army court martial sentence of death. National Archives. Box RG 332. Clines, F. X. 1993. "When Black Soldiers Were Hanged: a War's Footnote." New York Times 7 February. Pp. A-14. Corviser, A. and J. Childs 1994. A Dictionary of Military History. Oxford: Blackwells. Disney, F. J. 1986 Shepton Mallet Prison. Personal and private limited edition. Gatrell, V.A.C. 1994 The Hanging Tree: Executions and the English People1770-1868. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Guardian 1993 "Civil rights appeal fails to stay hanging of US child killer." 6 January: 8. Huie, W. B. 1954 The Execution of Private Slovik. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce. Hughes, E. C. 1971The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers on Work, Self & The Study of Society. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Johnson, R. 1990. Death Work: A Study of the Modern Execution Process. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Lay, K. J. 1993 "Sexual Racism: A Legacy of Slavery." National Black Law Journal 13:165-183. Lilly, J. R. 1993 "Executing Soldiers During WW II." Presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Phoenix, Az. Lilly, J. R. 1995 "US Military Executions." After the Battle. No 90:50-54. Lilly, J. R. and J. M. Thomson 1995a "Race and Punishment in the Military: WW II." Presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Boston, Mass. March. Lilly, J. R. and J. M. Thomson 1995b "Executing U.S. Soldiers in England, WW II: The Power of Command Influence and Sexual Racism." Submitted for publication. Linebaugh, P. 1992. The London Hanged: Crime and Civil Society in the Eighteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Litten, J. (1991) The English Way of Death: The Common Funeral Since 1450. London: Robert Hale. Lofland, John. 1977. State Executions: View Historically and Sociologically. Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith. Longmate, N. 1988 How We Lived: A History of Everyday Life During The Second World War. London: Arrow. Manual for Courts-Martial 1928. War Department. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. McCombs, D. and F. L. Worth 1983 World War II SUPER FACTS. New York: Warner Books. Nurnberger Nachrichten 1946 "Die Todesurteile von Nurnberg sind vollstreckt." 17 Oktober. Pierrepoint, A. 1974 Executioner Pierrepoint. London: Coronet Books. Post, T. 1995 "The Trial of the Century." Newsweek 6 November: 56-58. Prior, L. 1989 The Social Organization of Death: Medical Discourse and Social Practices in Belfast. New York: St. Martin's Press. Ramsey, W. 1994 "Normandy Executions." After The Battle. No. 85: 28-32. Ramsey, W. 1988 After The Battle. No. 59: 28-51. Reynolds, D. 1995 Rich Relations: The American Occupation of Britain, 1942-1945. New York: Random House. Rooney, A. 1995 My War. New York: Time Books. Smith, G. 1987 When Jim Crow Met John Bull: Black American Soldiers in World War II in Britain: London: I.E. Tauris & Co. Ltd. Sudnow, D. 1967 Passing: The Social Organization of Dying. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Taylor, T. 1992 The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials. New York: Knopf. Transcript No. 2. 1943. 25 June. ETO Files. National Archives. Suitland, MD. Transcript No. 3. 1943. 14 December. ETO Files. National Archives. Suitland, MD. Transcript No. 4. 1944. 10 February. ETO Files. National Archives. Suitland, MD. Transcript. No. 11. 1944. 12 October. ETO Files. National Archives. Suitland, MD. Tusa, A. and J. Tusa 1984 The Nuremburg Trial. New York: Atheneum. Williams, E. 1944 Capitalism and Slavery. London: Andre Deutsch Lmt. ENDNOTES