Local Story: The Massie-Kahahawai Case and the Culture of History

Chapter 4: A Closing and an Opening: The Massie-Fortescue Murder Trial

65 The grand jury of the First Judicial Circuit Court of the Territory of Hawaii do present that Grace Fortescue,Thomas H. Massie, Edward J. Lord, and Albert O. Jones . . . did kill and murder one Joseph­ Kahahawai Jr., a human being, and then and thereby commit the crime of murder in the second degree. . . . —Indictment of the Massie-Fortescue group for second-degree murder,­ january 26, 19321 The Territory of Hawaii v. Massie, Fortescue, Lord, and Jones was the first case of 1932 to be considered by the grand jury. The prosecutor’s office also considered it a small victory that the grand jury ultimately returned a bill of indictment in late January despite the fact that many jurors were employees of Big Five firms. A national audience followed the Massie case from the fall of 1931 to the spring of 1932, especially during April and the early days of May, when the Territory of Hawai‘i played host to the Massie-Fortescue murder trial. The trial was held in a territorial courthouse across from ‘Iolani Palace in Honolulu, even though some navy officials and members of Congress a c l o s i n g a n d a n o p e n i n g The Massie-Fortescue Murder Trial 4 66 chapter 4­ attempted to move it to a location on the continent, either the District of Columbia or in Thomas Massie’s home state of Kentucky.2 This murder trial was covered by a wider range of media than the rape trial in the fall of 1931, and since that trial the surprise killing of Joseph Kahahawai in January 1932 served to generate a larger audience of interested followers. Local audiences in the islands and malihini haoles saw the outcome of the case much differently from those on the “Mainland.” This chapter suggests how the curious final events of the Massie-Fortescue murder trial contributed to the ongoing production of local identity in Hawai‘i as a cultural identity. The murder trial’s unorthodox legal ending provided closure to the Massie case for most continental Americans, but it left an open wound for local audiences. The outcome of the murder trial illustrated and maintained a boundary between “locals” and “mainlanders” that was crucial to the formation of local identity in Hawai‘i. From the Killing of­ Kahahawai to the­ Commutation of ­Sentences Shortly after the burial of Joseph Kahahawai in January 1932, both the prosecution and the defense prepared their cases for the matter of the Territory of Hawaii v. Massie, Fortescue, Lord, and Jones.3 Rear Admiral Stirling had requested that the four defendants remain in the custody of the U.S. Navy “for their personal safety.” Governor Judd allowed the navy to keep the Massie-Fortescue group at Pearl Harbor on board the receiving ship USS­ Alton. In doing so, Judd actually risked having them whisked away and out of the jurisdiction of the territory. The navy, however, kept its promise and put Captain Ward Wortman, Massie’s commander, in charge of the four defendants , to serve as their jailor. A grand jury met on January 22 for the first of two days of testimony. On January 24 the jury, realizing that they might face the ire of the haole elite, returned “no bill” to Judge Albert M. Cristy. Cristy refused to accept the jury’s decision and instructed them to return on January 26. That day, the jury hesitated again and returned a “no bill” around noon, but this time Judge Cristy issued a stern warning, practically instructing them, said some, that returning a bill of indictment was their duty. The grand jury ultimately indicted Massie, Fortescue, Lord, and Jones with the required twelve votes. A Closing and an Opening 67 Cristy came under much public scrutiny for having pressured the jury. Rear Admiral Stirling protested what he saw as tampering on the part of the judge. Stirling reported to the Navy Department in Washington, D.C., that the vote of the grand jury had been twelve to nine in favor of throwing the case out before Cristy sent the grand jury to deliberate again. This preliminary vote was an unconfirmed rumor, and some wondered how Stirling could have received word. Did the navy have an inside source among members of the grand jury? None of the jury seemed to be a spy, but some were worried that the results...