Talk:Hok-Seng Lau/@comment-1.41.170.199-20181215082324

Why was Hok-Seng Lau found "guilty by self-confession of the murder of Nunzio Pasqua"?

Did Hok-Seng Lau really self-confess to a crime he didn't commit? And if so, what were his motives? Perhaps he felt that he had failed his queen? Or perhaps he was being somehow punished for claiming otherwise, and eventually gave in?

Li Hong was a part of the first mutiny, so perhaps he could have been a rogue translator, speaking on behalf of Hok-Seng Lau. But my impression was that there were many able translators on board at the time. Did they really take the word of a single translator as reliable enough evidence for a crime that would be punishable by the death sentance? Hok-Seng Lau would surely have been able to find another translator to give a conflicting account.

On the other hand, there may have been confusion, and perhaps Hok-Seng Lau didn't realize that his translator was compromised, or that he was slated for execution, until it was too late to find a better translator. Even so, surely one of the Chinese-English speakers would have asked Hok-Seng Lau about the crime he supposedly commited?

Another possible explanation is that Nichols used his influence as second mate and his eyewitness account of the crime to convince the Captain of the murder. Then perhaps the Captain believed Nichols, and wanted Hok-Seng Lau executed as punishment, but didn't have enough evidence to execute him. Then perhaps he lied about there being a self-confession, to create enough supporting evidence to warrant an execution.

I am not sure that I am convinced by any of my explanations.

Thoughts?