It is a true story that occurred more than a century ago.
Jack Want, a famous Australian lawyer, had a keen interest in yachting. In 1883 Want went to England in search of a new boat. He acquired the Mignonette at Cowes, a 19.43 net tonnage 52-foot cruiser built in 1867. There is no reasonable way to transport a yacht to Australia other than by sailing it there. The yacht is a small vessel and the prospect of a 15,000-mile voyage hindered Want’s initial search for crew members. Nevertheless, they started the sail to Sydney from Southampton on 19 May 1884 with a crew of four: Tom Dudley (the captain), Edwin Stephens (first mate), Edmund Brooks (sailor), and Richard Parker, the cabin boy. Parker was an inexperienced seaman aged 17 years old only.
As of 5 July, the yacht was running before a gale at 27°10′ south and 9°50′ west, about 1,600 miles northwest of the Cape of Good Hope. Although the weather was not in any way extreme and the vessel was not in any difficulty, a wave struck the yacht and washed away the lee bulwarks. In an instant, Dudley realized that the yacht was doomed, and he ordered the single 13-foot lifeboat to be lowered. As a result of being struck, the Mignonette sank within five minutes of being sunk. The crew abandoned ship for the lifeboat, managing to salvage vital navigational instruments and two tins of turnips, but no fresh water. Different theories have been put forward about the structural inadequacies of the yacht that led to such a catastrophic failure in routine weather conditions.
They drifted at sea until the 3rd day when the captain opened the first can of turnips and distributed it to everyone. Each person was given a garlic-sized portion.
On the 5th day, the keen-eyed sailor saw a large turtle in the water, and the experienced first mate managed to drag it into the boat. The meat of a turtle can barely be consumed raw, while the blood of a turtle is saltier than seawater and cannot be consumed. The captain then opened the second can of turnips for everyone to consume.
On the 9th day, the four began drinking their own urine.
The 11th day, it rained, but as the four of them did not possess the tools to conserve the rain, they opened their mouths and drank a few drops.
In desperation, they discussed a way out on the 13th day. By drawing lots, the captain proposed to sacrifice one person and then exchange his flesh and blood for the other three in order to survive for a few more days. However, discussions did not reach a consensus.
On the 15th day, the boy became so thirsty that he drank seawater.
On day 16, the boy who drank sea water began to feel sick.
From 19th day onwards, the boy was in a coma. The captain said he preferred to kill the boy rather than wait for the four of them to die together, and they would survive on the flesh and blood of the boy. Despite the mate’s noncommittal response, the sailor refused the offer immediately. That night, under the dark night sky, the captain glanced at the unconscious boy and once again told the first mate and the sailor: the boy is likely to die; if he died naturally, the blood would freeze and be unsuitable for drinking; and he was an orphan; the captain, chief mate, and sailor had wives and children, respectively. The first mate, upon hearing this, agreed with the captain’s proposal. However, the sailor refused to accept the proposal and suggested waiting until the next morning. Maybe a miracle will occur, for example, the boy waking up or a boat coming to the rescue. The captain and first mate accepted the proposal.
After waking up on the 20th day, the captain and first officer saw the shadow of the rescue ship and the boy who was still in a coma. In the meantime, the sailor awoke as well. The captain gestured to ask him what he thought, and the sailor replied: Neither I support nor oppose it. Then captain and the first officer then came to the boy’s side. The first mate held the boy’s legs to prevent him from struggling. The captain first looked up to the sky and prayed, and then stabbed the boy’s jugular vein with a pocket knife. The boy woke up at the moment he was slain and murmured “why me” (or “what me”), and was killed.
As a result, the three survived on the flesh and blood of the boy. The first mate ate and drank the least, and instead the sailor and captain ate most of the boy’s body.
A German barque was spotted on the 25th day by the three and a distress signal was sent. They were saved.
After two months, the German barge returned the three people to the port town of Falmouth on the east coast of England, where they were routinely required to explain the details of the marine damage when entering customs. They were all candid and straightforward about the death of the boy. All three of them, as well as the customs officers, believed that their practices were protected by maritime customs. However, a police officer next to him overheard these conversations, and the police officer asked the captain in shock how the boy was killed, and then requested the folding knife. Overnight, the police officers reviewed the captain’s testimony, and telegrams were sent to the London Office of Board of Trade, as well as Registrar General of Shipping. Having become overwhelmed, the Board Trade sought instructions from the Home Office; and the Registrar General of Shipping suggested that the three individuals who were about to be reunited with their families be detained first.
On Monday, the trio was arrested and appeared before a magistrate in the District Court. The captain was confident that the court would release them immediately.
When the quarrel reached the Home Office, it became a very hot topic with no agreement. So the local court would not let the three people go, and they were detained in a police station for the whole week. The mayor of Falmouth visited the trio in a police cell, as part of his belief that they were innocent.
On Friday, the boy’s only brother, Daniel, who was also a seaman, also appeared in court. Daniel forgave the three and shook hands with each of them. During this time, the media in the UK and around the globe began to pay attention to the case. In general, the public supported the innocence of the three individuals. Public opinion led the Home Office to agree with the local court to temporarily issue a “granted bail” sentence, allowing the three defendants to at least return home to see their family members.
At this point, though, Home Office Secretary Sir Harcourt, dismayed that public sentiment could influence the court’s decision, insisted that the three be convicted. In legal terms, this is a murder, and the punishment for murder in England at the time was hanging.
The legal process began that lasted for more than three months. The prosecution lawyer was employed by the Crown. The defence lawyers were also Crown appointed, and the lawyer fees were paid from a foundation established by private donations. Together with the justices and jury, there was a scuffle.
The conclusion of the court is such a hard decision. On the one hand, it is the equity (fairness) supported by public opinion, and on the other hand, it is the original intent of the law (order).
As of now, I am able only to admire the cleverness of the Western legal system. In the end, the sailor was acquitted, while the murderous captain and first mate were sentenced to death.
The Queen then pardoned the two men, and the court commuted the sentence to six months in prison.
Director Ang Lee said that his film “Life of Pi” is purely fictional, but I don’t think so. The original author of this story is a Canadian born in the 60s. The Bengal tiger in the original French novel is called Richard Parker, which is exactly the name of the unfortunate 17-year-old boy more than a century ago.
