Who Killed William Robinson?

William Robinson’s murder occurred in March of 1868 on Salt Spring Island. Robinson was last seen the preceding Sunday at church and was found dead in his cabin by a man who occasionally brought goods to Robinson's cabin. After repeated attempts to meet with Robinson, the man removed some packing between the logs of the cabin wall, looked inside, and saw a man's boots laying on the floor. The man alarmed the other settlers but it was not until the following Monday that it was made known to the resident constable, Henry Sampson. Sampson broke into the cabin to find Robinson on his back with a bullet wound through his chest and the box that he had been sitting on between his legs. He appeared to have been shot while having dinner at his table, his knife still in hand.

A newspaper article highlighting important details of the murder was published on March 24, 1868, two days after Sampson found Robinson’s body. The article described the murder and catalogued what was missing from Robinson’s home, the items being a double-barrel shotgun, some clothes and Robinson's account books. No other items were listed as stolen.

Testimonies Before and During the Trial of William Robinson’s Murder

On April 2, 1869, more than a year after the murder occurred, John Norton, a farmer on Salt Spring, testified to John Morley, the Justice of the Peace and the Coroner for the Cowichan district, that a week prior an Indigenous man whom Norton did not know told him that another Indigenous man named Tshuanahusset (referred to as Tom) killed Robinson and an Indigenous boy from Plumpers Pass witnessed the crime. The Anonymous tipster also suggested that the murder weapon was stashed in a box at the ranch that Tom owned. Norton could not identify who he received this tip from, and he self-identified the witness as Sue-Tas (referred to as Dick).

On April 7, 1869, following this anonymous, unsubstantiated tip, Norton testified to Morley that he went with Sampson to arrest Tom and to search Tom’s house. The only item found was an auger that they claimed belonged to Robinson. They brought it with them to take back to Salt Spring, but somehow it disappeared from the canoe before they arrived.

Morley originally took Dick’s testimony, the supposed witness from Plumpers Pass, on April 7, 1869, and on June 2, 1869, Dick testified against Tom in court. Dick stated that he knew Tom, and a year ago Tom offered to transport him to his own tribe by canoe. When they passed by Salt Spring Tom remarked that he wanted to kill Robinson. Dick explained that Tom left the canoe with his musket and approached Robinson’s cabin. Dick planned to stay behind but got cold and followed Tom into Robinson’s home. Robinson was cooking dinner and Tom was sitting beside the fire with his gun in his hand. When Dick entered the room Tom told him to see if there was anything valuable enough to take once he had shot Robinson. Dick then fearfully left the home and heard a gunshot once he was outside. He peered back into the cabin and saw Tom take the musket from above the fireplace, an auger, a box, a coat, and an axe, and Tom carried all of these items in one trip, by himself to the canoe. When they reached Tom’s home, Tom took all of the stolen goods into the house, again, all in one trip.

Morley took Tom’s statement on April 7, 1869, following his arrest. Tom’s only defence was that he had been sick for the past two years and that Mr Franklin had made him a Constable, which was a testament to the kind of man he was. He also stated his confusion about what Dick had to say, unaware of their involvement in the murder.

On April 16, 1869, Attorney General Henry Crease, wrote to Morely requesting at least one of the stolen goods be found so that it could be produced in the court proceedings; Morley sent Hambro Rinner to search for something matching the list of stolen items that Dick testified to Tom stealing. On May 5, 1869, Rinner returned with an axe found in Tom’s house and he testified to its acquisition in court. He explained that the axe was found laying down in a corner plain to be seen. Rinner additionally remarked that Chemainus Indigenous craft their axe handles out of oak. Norton verified this story claiming the axe present in the courtroom was Robinson’s: he knew this because Robinson made his own axe handles, and preferred to use an unusual seven-pound axe head.

Sampson testified that when he entered Robinson’s home he noticed a chest, a double-barrel gun, a coat, and a large heavy axe with an oak handle which he had heard Robinson claim to have made, were missing. Finally, he explained that Tom was sick and walking with a cane when he was arrested.

The testimony supporting Tom’s innocence was presented by Charlie (Tom’s brother), and Thomas George Askew (the mill owner). Charlie testified that he made the axe handle present in court while he was at Tom’s house and due to Tom's sickness, he could not use the axe. Askew testified that he sold Tom the axe head present in court. He stated that he had a good relationship with Tom, and believed Tom to be a good person. He also testified that the Indigenous people made their own axe handles out of oak, corroborating Rinner, and Charlie’s testimony. When re-examined Askew stated that he has only sold one seven pound axe head, and it was specifically sold to Tom. Askew and Charlie’s testimony prove that the axe found in Tom’s home was Tom’s axe, supported Tom’s assertion that he was an honourable man, and confirmed his long endured sickness. Tom pled not guilty but following the court proceedings, the jury found Tom guilty of the murder of William Robinson and sentenced him to execution by hanging.

Interpretation of the Testimony

Dick’s eyewitness testimony is problematic. Tom stated that he has been sick for two years, and walked with a cane, which Charlie and Sampson confirmed. With that said, it is highly unlikely that Tom carried every stolen item by himself. Additionally, Dick testified that while Tom, Robinson, and himself were inside Robinson’s residence, Tom told Dick to see if there was anything of value to take after he shot Robinson. This would have been said in front of Robinson while he was sitting down to supper, which is unbelievable because any person who heard this would react, fight or run. Robinson was found in a toppled sitting position which does not suggest a man fearful for his impending murder. The final piece of evidence to conclude Dick fabricated his testimony is the fact that his testimony made him most unwelcome among his tribe following the trial.

Norton and Sampson also present very paradoxical testimony. According to these men when they arrested Tom they searched his home and only found an auger on the floor. This contradicts the testimony given by Rinner, who stated that when he searched the premises a month after Tom’s arrest, he found an axe in the corner of the home in plain sight. If there was an axe in plain sight it is reasonable to believe that Norton and Sampson would have collected it when they searched Tom’s home and arrested him. This incongruence suggests that the axe was placed in the house after Tom was arrested, but before Rinner was directed to search Tom’s home.

An additional issue regarding Norton’s testimony is the question of the auger, which was supposedly found in Tom’s home, but mysteriously vanished before it could be presented to the authorities. Also, an auger was not an item that was catalogued as stolen when the original crime details were published on March 24, 1868. It was only after Dick’s testimony, a year later, that an auger was recorded as a stolen item.

This unsubstantiated claim is made even more erroneous due to Norton’s history as an unreliable witness. In the case of Curtis Giles (an African American murdered on December 13, 1868, under similarly questionable circumstances) Norton brought unsubstantiated evidence to the authorities of threats being made by the Indigenous people towards the settlers around the time of Curtis’s death as evidence of murderous intent. Norton gained the reputation of always being involved in settler outrage regarding the Indigenous people on the island. This reputation raises the question: why is a farmer so involved in these matters? The answer is simple, following the string of murders and Indigenous executions, Norton becomes one of the most wealthy landowners on the island.

Tom’s trial was discriminatory at best. Racial bias was an issue that was identified in a letter to the editor published in the British Colonist on June 5, 1869. The letter stated that aside from the testimony of Dick, there was no evidence that would incriminate Tom in the slightest degree. Further, the writer asserted that in trials where the most prominent feature is Indigenous based evidence and testimony, the jurors should be people who can fully appreciate that aspect of the trial. The letter also explained that their community was being too careless about the lives of Indigenous people, which is a comment that points directly to the obvious issues regarding settler-Indigenous relations.

Issues Regarding Robinson’s Will and Property

On January 2, 1869, J.P Booth and John C. Jones, citizens of Salt Spring, contacted the Attorney General to complain about how Robinson’s estate was being settled. The letter mentions that the estate executor purchased the farm without notifying Robinson’s heirs, a claim that is substantiated by a letter written by Mary E. Robinson, requesting access to her husband's estate. They further complain that the executor did not put the property up for public auction, or advertise the property publicly. The executor even refused to provide information to those inquiring about the property. They stated that an uneasy feeling was created in the community due to the executor’s malpractice.

On February 6, 1869, Crease wrote Morley to follow up on this complaint. Morley replied a month later explaining that there was no will to follow because the papers could not be found. Morley explained that he had presented the case to Honorable Chief Justice Needham who appointed him as the Official Administer of the estate. Morley took an inventory, liquidated assets, paid outstanding bills, and gave the account to the Registrar. Crease then rejected the complaint from Booth and Jones on March 12, 1869, stating that their complaint was completely unfounded. He asserted that Morley had acted under court orders and sold the property to the highest bidder as there were insufficient assets to pay an auctioneer.

Corruption Suggesting Foul-play

The men involved in Tom’s execution had sufficient motive to fix the results of the trial. Salt Spring Island had a history of bad relations with surrounding Indigenous tribes. On December 21, 1868, a few months before Tom’s trial, a number of settlers collectively sent a letter to the Governor complaining that the increased criminal activity in the area, and lack of legal action taken in response, caused the tribes to doubt the government’s strength. The letter further suggests that if the government did not provide protection from the Indigenous people, the settlers would take their defence into their own hands, or simply abandon the colony. Among others, the undersigned included Henry Sampson, John Norton, Armstead Buckner (a witness for the prosecution), William Whims (who provided tips resulting in Tom’s arrest), Clark Whims (an exonerated murder suspect), and Jonathan Martin (the interpreter in the trial of Tshuanahusset). Each of these settlers was involved in scapegoating Tom for a murder he did not commit. Coincidentally, this letter was also sent 8 days after Giles’ murder, another crime that scapegoated an Indigenous man who was deemed guilty by a settler jury due to unsubstantiated evidence.

Other suspicious participants include Crease and Needham. Crease’s suggestion that incriminating evidence would be helpful in court resulted in Rinner’s search of Tom’s home, which fortuitously produced a piece of evidence. Following the execution of Tom, Crease was appointed Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1870.

Needham denied any administrative foul play in regards to the settlement of Robinson’s estate. However, Needham’s ability to ensure there was no maladministration was compromised by the fact that he appointed Morley as executor and directed Morley’s actions. Following this questionable administration, Needham was appointed Chief Justice of Trinidad and knighted in 1870.

Finally, the Brittancourt Brothers, who were conveniently close friends of Norton are two of the greatest beneficiaries of William Robinson's murder. The two men stayed out of the trial proceedings, but still acquired Robinson’s land which they used to establish a successful business and gain considerable wealth and influence.

Who Killed William Robinson?

While Tom was found guilty and executed, the trial provided very little evidence, if any, that proved Tom was guilty. The more likely explanation is a case of conspiracy to commit murder with the combined efforts of Norton, Morley, Sampson, Rinner, Buckner, Crease, Needham, Dick, the Whims brothers, and the Brittancourt brothers.

The racial bias the settlers of Salt Spring Island felt towards the Indigenous people is well documented. Newspaper articles describe them as nuisances, s*vages, and rascals, and advocated for the government to move them onto reserve land. The British Colonist published an article on March 13, 1869, asserting that even with the current Naval force, the settlers needed further protection. An article published prior to the murders stated outright that the Indigenous people were drawing life's blood from the settlers, and if the authorities powers are too weak, even the most law-abiding citizen should be excused for taking matters into their own hands to dole out punishment. These complaints and publications sent a very clear message: remove the Indigenous people from Salt Spring Island. The settlers became frustrated and restless and there is significant evidence insinuating that they took matters into their own hands.

They needed outright proof of Indigenous violence against settlers, something more substantial than missing cattle. The string of murders provided the settlers with ample legal precedence to prove the Indigenous threat, strengthening their call to action. The victims were of African-American heritage and while they were liberated citizens, they were not Caucaisions, making them ideal sacrifices to further the cause of European colonization of the Dominion of Canada.

Robinson’s murder also presented an opportunity for significant economic and political gains; many settlers involved in the conspiracy gained significant wealth and influence, and the government officials received prestigious promotions.

The conspiracy to commit William Robinson’s murder and frame Tshuanahusset provided the government with the legal footing to label the Indigenous people as a threat and remove them. This plan aided everyone involved, as Canada’s primary motive has always been to eliminate the Indigenous population and completely colonize the Dominion of Canada. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry that could be used as a means to further this goal was fair game. I cannot say for certain who pulled the trigger, but these men are undoubtedly responsible for William Robinson’s murder, and as such, it is not unreasonable to say that they each deserve the title: William Robinson’s Murderer.