MURDER MOST

MYSTERIOUS

I
Author of

C.IJ3.

PERSONS UNKNOWN
MURDER BY

POLICE
ENCYCLOP/i:DIA

STORY OF CRIME
THE

ORIENTAL CRIME

THE INDIAN CRIMINAL

WOMAN AND CRIME

PENCE MYSTERY
THE

BURKE AND HARE

THE POISONER
PRITCHARD

THE RED BARN

MYSTERY OF
THE

THE TRAGIC BRIDES

TRIUMPHS OF DETECTION

DR. LAWSON

CHAPMAN ETC.
GEORGE
 "yv-/ I

A\^^CbrTi

MURDER MOST

MYSTERIOUS

BY

HARGRAVE LEE ADAM

LONDON
MARSTON " CO., LTD.
SAMPSON LOW,
 SONS

AND

PURNELL

BY

nnlTAIN

^"""T
 murderer!"

of
mind
read the
might
"O,
that

we
 FOREWORD

In the ensuing I have dealt with a

pages group
of "unfinished" murder cases,
all of which have

occurred during the last few years. By unfinished

I mean, as doubtless will be readily understood,

cases where the law has gone

unsatisfied. I prefer
the word "unfinished" to that of "unsolved",
which such cases sometimes certainly are nDt.

It is true that in the remarkable Wallace case,

as in the equally remarkable case of Dr. Knowles,

there was a conviction. In both cases, however,
the convictions were subsequently quashed and

the accused went free. Thus neither of these

cases can be said, in the fullest sense of the word,

to have been finished, since nobody paid the

ultimate legal penalty for the crime.

In the Wallace case I have been enabled, through

the courtesy of the proprietors and Editor of

the Liverpool Post, to quote freely from the very

excellent report of the trial which appeared in

that journal.
In the case of Dr. Knowles the appellant
had the invaluable assistance of Mr. D. N.

Pritt, K.C., who appeared for him when the

appeal case came before the Privy Council,

and who was instrumental in procuring the

vii
VIU FOREWORD

ultimate release of Dr. Knowles. One may

here also allude to the interesting fact that

since then Mr. Pritt has again appeared before

the Privy Council, this time representing three

prisoners who had escaped from the much

advertised and notorious French penal ment

settle-

known as Devil's Island. Again Mr. Pritt

was successful in securing the release of his

clients.

I have been fortunate enough to obtain access,

through an exclusive source, to the printed details

of the so-called trial of Dr. Knowles in Africa, by

means of which I have been enabled to present
a comparatively comprehensive narrative of this

exceptional case. I commend the details of the

proceedings in Africa to the careful attention of

those of my readers whose knowledge of the

administration of British criminal law is confined

to this country, and who are, upon occasion,

inclined to be somewhat captious about it.

As I did in a former volume, I invite the reader

to work out his own solutions of the mysteries

presented by the various cases dealt with, although
in each instance I have endeavoured to give him

a "lead".

In previous work, CJ.D., I am reminded

my

by several correspondents that I have gone astray

on several points of English and Scots criminal

law. The subject of law, either criminal or common,

I need scarcely point out, is a very complicated
and technical one, and therefore somewhat difficult
 FOREWORD IX

for a mere layman to handle. So that I am not

myself much surprised, although not at all

very

gratified,
to learn that I have succeeded in achieving
several "slips." All my correctors are qualified
lawyers and I am taking this, the first available

opportunity, of giving their corrections publicity

and so putting myself right with my readers

generally.
I have stated, what I then believed to be a

fact, that the Scots third verdict of "Not Proven"

was equivalent to our Coroner's "open" verdict,

and that in the event of additional evidence coming
to light, the accused man might be re-arrested

and again put upon his trial. I have also described

how in Scotland a prisoner is subjected to a severe

cross-examination by the Procurator-Fiscal in the

process of his being called to "emit a

upon
declaration."

Mr. Roland Waugh, the Procurator-Fiscal of

Dunfermline, has written and corrected me on

these two points in the following words: "Not for

many years has a Scots prisoner been subjected

to a 'gruelling interrogation', as I think you put
it. As a matter of fact, since 1887 all prisoners
are entitled to a private interview with a law

agent before declaration, and to have their law

agent (solicitor)present at the examination. In

practice the declaration, which is written on the

form of which I enclose a sample, almost invariably

ended, after the stock queries, 'I have nothing to

say in regard to the charge of which has

X FOREWORD

been read over to me '. Since the passing of the

Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908, a

declaration is not now essential in shape, and

any
is very seldom used.

"Our 'Not Proven' verdict does not give

opportunity for a second trial. Once a case has
been brought to proof, the accused has 'tholed
his assize' and cannot be retried."

Mr. Waugh enclosed a copy of the Declaration

form and of the form of "Petition".

I also received a long letter from Mr. James
Hyslop, of the firm of solicitors,Messrs. J. " C. M.

Hyslop, of Dumfries, dealing with these same

points. It gives all the law on the subjects and is

far too long to quote here, nor would it be necessary,
since the ultimate results are the same as those
described by Mr. Waugh. Mr. Hyslop points
out that a prisoner can and sometimes does object
to making a declaration, and that when an tion
examina-

occurs it is conducted by the Sheriff in the

presence of the Procurator-Fiscal.

I am much indebted to my correspondents for

the trouble they have taken in the matter.

In dealing with the Goddard case I appear to

have created a wrong impression in the mind of

at least one of my readers. This was Sir Maurice

Gwyer, Treasury Solicitor, of Storey's Gate, who

has written me about it. I have not space to do

more than present a resume of my correspondent's

letter, which I do as follows:

In dealing with the civil proceedings, which

 FOREWORD XI

were brought by the Crown for the purpose of

recovering the moneys found in the possession of

ex-Sgt. Goddard, I said, "The law has now

settled the matter in favour of Goddard". Sir

Maurice Gwyer denies this, and proceeds to point

out that the learned Judge (Mr. Justice Rowlatt)
ruled that moneys in the form of bribes, received

by a member of the Metropolitan Police, might

be recovered by the Crown, "on the general
common law principle that an employer can

demand that his servant or agent hands over to

him all moneys received by the servant or agent

in the course of his service or agency. . .
."

I agree. Sir Maurice has evidently stood

misunder-

me. I was, perhaps, not too happy in the

wording of the paragraph quoted. I meant to

infer that the case was decided in favour of Goddard.

Let me be a little more explicit.As my ent

correspond-
points out, the Judge, after hearing a lengthy
argument from Sir Leslie Scott on behalf of the

defendant, gave judgment for the Crown for a

portion of the money, which they had proved had

been received by Goddard by way of bribes, and

for Goddard for the remainder of the money (the

bulk of it) as his lordship maintained that the

Crown had failed to show that this sum also was

received by the defendant in the way of bribery.

Since the defendant was allowed to retain the

bulk of the money I thought, and still think, I

was justifiedin stating that the case was decided

in his favour.
Xll FOREWORD

But I did not wish to infer, as Sir Maurice

Gwyer seems to think I meant, that the general

law of Bribery and Corruption was in any way
involved in this ruling. It had, in fact, no nection
con-

with it except to uphold it.

I think this should remove all doubt or understan

mis-

in the matter. I further cordially

agree with my correspondent when he adds that

it is very important that no countenance should

be given to the idea that public servants may take

bribes legally and with impunity. The Goddard

case, he rightly points out, is, so far as the politan

Metro-

Police is concerned, a direct authority to

the contrary. In this connection I should like to

point out that, in the volume referred to, I drew

attention to the difficulties the authorities had to

deal with in regard to the moral aspect of the

case.

In book I also made reference, quoting Sir

my
Archibald Bodkin at the time, to the legal slang
term of "soup", and I have apparently given a

wrong impression of its meaning, as Sir Maurice

Gwyer points out in the following interesting

manner :

"
I do not think that '
soup' has ever been another

name for a
'
dock' brief. When I attended Criminal

Courts many years ago in London and on Circuit,

'soups' were briefs in minor police prosecutions,
which were distributed among members of the

Sessions Bar Mess, in order of seniority. I suppose

that in London a 'soup' would come round to a

 FOREWORD Xlll

member of the Mess once in every four or five

weeks, and it was said that it was from them

that some of the older members of the Mess drew

their entire income. 'Soups' were always tions,

prosecu-
'dock' briefs were, and are, always defences,
so called because the prisoner instructs Counsel

from the dock without the intervention of a

solicitor."

I repeat that I am much indebted to my several

correspondents for their kindly and painstaking

intervention and I have given their valuable

corrections the fullest and earliest publication

available to me, as all suggested might be done.

I must apologise to my readers for keeping them

so long in the perusal of this Foreword (supposing

they have been perusing it, which they may very
well not have been doing) which I will now proceed
to close with these final words:

The cases which I have included in my varied

survey do not constitute the whole of the cases of the

kind which have occurred during the period of time

which they cover. I have merely made a selection

from the whole number. Cases of mysterious

murder appear to be occurring with more and

more frequency " are being added to as I write "

a fact which may justifiablybe rather alarming to

most people. In the vast continent of America,

of course, such statistics would be regarded as

gratifying rather than disturbing. But in this small

island, unused to the criminal activity of even a

Chicago, they can scarcely be expected to be

XIV FOREWORD

received with complacency. They, however, afford

plenty of material for the chroniclers of such events,

and as
I happen to be of that ilk, I shall
one say

no more
about it. Also there is no
need to "shoot"

the police, as they are doing their best.

 CONTENTS

PAGE
CHAPTER

I. The Pistol Shot i

....

(The Case of Dr. Benjamin Knowles, Ashanti,

1928.)

II. The Silent Hour

....
38

(The Case of Louisa Maud Steele, Blackheath,

January, 1931.)

III. The Still Tongue 60

....

(The Case of Margery Wren, Ramsgate,

September, 1930.)

IV. The Body in the Ditch

...
76

(The Case of Agnes Kesson, Epsom, June,

1930-)

V. The Burned Out Motor Car 106

. .

(The Case of Evelyn Foster, Otterburn,

January, 1931.)

VI. The Late Caller .128

. . .

(The Case of Edward Creed, Bayswater,

July, 1926.)

VII. The Paying Guest . . "

^39
.

(The Case of Hilary Rougier, Woking,

August, 1926.)

VIII. The Secret of the Bungalow . .

157

(The Case of Thomas Henry Jackson,

February, 1929.)

XV
XVI CONTENTS

PAGE
CHAPTER

IX. The Clue of the Telephone Message

(The Case of William Herbert Wallace,

Liverpool,January, 1931.)

X. The Dead Driver ....

264
(The Case of Samuel Fell Wilson, Warsop,
September, 1930.)
 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

THE PISTOL SHOT

{The Case of Dr. Benjamin Knowles, Ashanti, 1928.)

(a)

In the
year 1928 Dr. Benjamin Knowles, a

medical officer in the employment of the tration

Adminis-

of the Colony of Ashanti, was living with

his wife, who had formerly been an actress in this

country, and known under the name of Madge

Clifton, at a place called Bekwai, distant about

twenty miles from Kumasi, in the Crown Colony

of the Gold Coast.

Dr. Knowles had been serving there for some

occasionally going on circuit, as it were,

years,

or as it was called there, "on tour". The nearest

medical man to Bekwai was

resident at Kumasi.

Needless to explain that it was hot there, so hot,

very

in fact, sometimes that the walls of the house were

too hot to touch. This was doubtless chiefly the

cause of the Government officials of the district " or

at all events some of them "

leading a somewhat
2 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

hectic existence,in which drink and sometimes drugs

played a prominent part.
On Saturday, October 20th, 1928, Mr. and Mrs.

Knowles gave a luncheon party at their bungalow

at Bekwai, at which there were present as guests
Mr. Mangin, District Commissioner, Mr. Bradfield,
Inspector of Government Works, Agent for Millers

Limited, Bekwai. The luncheon party was a merry

affair, and there was much laughing and joking.
There was also, of course, plenty to drink, although
it is not suggested that there was necessarilyexcessive
drinking. By 2.30 all the guests had departed.
Adjoining the dining-room was the bedroom.

In it and side by side were two separate bedsteads,

both being covered, canopy-wise, with a mosquito
net. After the guests had departed. Dr. Knowles

went into the bedroom and lay down upon one of

the beds. He was followed a little later by his

wife. By then the doctor was in a drowsy dition,

con-

half asleep and half awake. The entrance of

his wife into the bedroom aroused him and some

conversation between the two ensued.

At that time two native servants, or "boys", were

busy preparing tea on the verandah, having been

told to do so by Dr. Knowles. One of these servants

was named Sampson, and had been in the ment

employ-
of Dr. Knowles about three weeks only. His

position was that of "steward boy". He had

previously served the lunch, and after lunch had

into the town, returning for tea by a train

gone
which came through from Sekondi to Kumasi. As
 THE PISTOL SHOT 3

he was preparing the tea he heard "something burst

inside the bedroom like a gun". Then he heard

Mrs. Knowles cry out, "Ah! Ah! Ah!" Then he

"
said that he heard his master say, Show me". The

other servant, named Bondo Fra Fra, also heard the

report, which he described as a "ping". Sampson

became alarmed, and told his fellow servant that he

should go and get assistance. He thereupon ran to

the house of the District Commissioner, Mr. Mangin.

He saw the Commissioner's boys and told them he

wanted to see their master. Mr. Mangin appeared

from the bathroom, and Sampson said to him,
"Will you please come and see what is inside

bungalow". He then returned to Dr. Knowles'

bungalow.
Mr. Mangin then got into his car and drove over

to the bungalow of Dr. Knowles. He stopped side

out-

the front door and called to the doctor. He

then saw Knowles walk from the dining-room to

the bedroom. He was naked. He subsequently

emerged from the bedroom with a towel wound

round him, and came out on to the steps. He gised

apolo-
for disturbing the doctor, but explained that

he had heard that a shot had been heard, and that

Mrs. Knowles had also been heard to scream. He

then asked if there had been an accident, and if he

could be of any assistance. The doctor appeared to

be rather surprised and annoyed, and said there

was no cause for alarm and that things were "all

right". The Commissioner, being satisfied with this

assurance, returned to his own bungalow.

4 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Subsequently the news of the mysterious happen-

ing
at the bungalow of Dr. Knowles reached the

ears of a surgeon specialistnamed Howard Walter

Gush, stationed at Kumasi. As a result of what he

heard Dr. Gush got into his car and motored over

to Bekwai. He entered Dr. Knowles' bungalow.

He called for Dr. Knowles and the doctor asked who

it was. Dr. Gush gave his name, and Knowles then

came out of his bedroom. Dr. Gush then apologised

for his sudden intrusion.

Knowles was dressed in pyjamas, and appeared

to Dr. Gush very confused and physically extremely
weak. He appeared to be sufferingfrom the effects

of alcohol, that is to say, the old effects. Dr. Knowles

asked his visitor to sit down, and they both sat.

"I have been told there has been an accident,"

observed Dr. Gush.

"Who told you?" asked Knowles.

"Mr. Applegate, the Provincial Commissioner,"

replied Mr. Gush.

"There has been a domestic fracas," explained

Knowles.

"What happened?" said Gush.

Dr. Knowles then bared his left leg and showed

that it was covered with bruises. He said that his

wife had flogged him with an Indian club. He also

said that she had been nagging him the previous

afternoon, and that he told her that if she did not

leave the room he would put a bullet in her. Dr.

Gush then asked if he might see Mrs. Knowles. Dr.

Knowles then went into the bedroom with the

 THE PISTOL SHOT 5

ostensible purpose of asking his wife, and Gush

heard Mrs. Knowles say, "I would like to see Dr.

Gush."

Both men then went into the bedroom. Dr. Gush

saw Mrs. Knowles standing at the foot of one of the

beds in her nightdress. He asked if he might

examine the wounds. He also asked Mrs. Knowles

how the accident had happened. The lady then

explained that she had been examining her band's

hus-

revolver, which had recently been cleaned

by the police,that she put the revolver down on a

chair and shortly after sat upon it. She then tried to

remove it from beneath her, but the open-work sleeve

of her dress caught in the trigger and the weapon

went off.

"Speak the truth," said Dr. Knowles.

"Shut up, Benjy," replied Mrs. Knowles. "You

don't know what you are talking about."

To this observation Dr. Knowles made no reply.
Dr. Gush then proceeded to examine the wounds.

He found one of them in the left buttock, about the

size of a threepenny bit, with marks of dried blood

about the wound. The second wound was on the

right side of the abdomen and was about the size

of a sixpenny piece. The former was the entry

wound and the latter the exit wound. There was

blood between the legs. Dr. Gush said that it would

be necessary that Mrs. Knowles should go into

hospitalat Kumasi, and both Mr. and Mrs. Knowles

agreed to this. He then suggested that Mrs. Knowles

should first have a warm bath. At this stage of the

b MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

interview Dr. Knowles was sittingin a wicker chair

near the door, and when Dr. Gush asked him to

move as he, Dr. Gush, wished to go out to his car. Dr.

Knowles made no response. Dr. Gush then Hfted the

chair with Knowles in it and put him out of the way.

Dr. Gush then gave one of the boys instructions

to prepare a warm bath for Mrs. Knowles, and

went across to the bungalow of the District missioner,

Com-

which was situated quite near, and side

out-

which he had left his car. Having had a chat

with the Commissioner, he took his car back to Dr.

Knowles' bungalow. By that time Mrs. Knowles

was ready dressed to depart. Dr. Gush then asked

Knowles for the revolver, and Knowles replied that

he did not know where it was. Mrs. Knowles, ever,
how-

said that it was in a uniform case, the key of

which she produced from her bag. Dr. Gush then

went and opened the case, in which he found the

revolver, on top of some clothes. He did not see

holster. He unloaded the revolver, and found

any
that there were five live cartridges in it and one

empty case. The cartridges were all similar. The

revolver was a Webly. Dr. Gush then wrapped the

revolver and the cartridges in a towel and put them

in his pocket. The following day he handed them

over to Major Smith, the Assistant Commissioner

of Police. He took Mrs. Knowles to the Colonial

Hospital at Kumasi, and there treated her wounds.

He found that they had already been treated with

iodine. That, with rest, would be the correct

treatment.
8 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

to believe that H. L. Knowles is a dying woman,

from wounds received.

"I hereby certifythat statement was given to me

on oath in the presence of Dr. B. Knowles and Major

Smith, A.C.P."

Mrs. Knowles died shortlyafter,on October 22nd.

Before the taking of the dying declaration of Mrs.

Knowles, Major H. E. Smith, of His Majesty's

Reserve of Officers, Acting Commissioner of Police,
Ashanti, accompanied by Mr. Morris, Assistant

Commissioner of Police, paid a visit to the bungalow

of Dr. Knowles at Bekwai. His mission was bly
ostensi-

one of close investigation. Leaving Mr. Morris

in the dressing-room. Major Smith went into the

bedroom. He observed the following details. As

has already been described, there were two beds,

standing side by side, with a mosquito net covering
both. Facing him as he went in from the lounge,
there was a wicker chair standing in front of a board.
cup-
Between the dressing-tableand the cupboard
was another wicker chair. These were the only
chairs in the room. By the side of the bed nearest

the door was a small deal table. It had no cloth on

it and books and papers were standing on the top.

On the far corner, away from the bed, there

appeared to be the impression of the butt of the

palm of the hand in blood. The mosquito net was

down, and lying on the bed nearest the door.

Major Smith knew Dr. Knowles. He found him

lying on one of the beds in his pyjamas, reading a

 THE PISTOL SHOT Q

piece of paper. It was an ordinary letter nected

con-

with his professional duties. He said to

Knowlcs :

"I am Harry Edmonstone Smith, a police officer,

and I am going to detain you on suspicion of having
caused grievous harm to Mrs. Knowles."

He then cautioned him, and told him that Dr.

Gush had said that Mrs. Knowles was in a ous

danger-
condition, and that it was necessary for a dying
declaration to be taken.

"I can't come to-day," replied Knowles.

"It is advisable," said the officer,"for you to

be present for your own sake."

"Am I under arrest?" asked Knowles.

"No," replied Smith. "At present I have no

warrant. But if you do not come voluntarily I shall

obtain a warrant."

"I am quite willing to come," observed Dr.

Knowles, and got out of bed.

Major Smith noticed that he was obviously very

weak and ill. He was unable to walk and, assisted

by Mr. Morris, Major Smith got him to a chair.

He was, however, quite rational and knew precisely

what was happening. He several times complained
of his nerves, saying that they were all gone. As he

sat on a chair he sponged his face and washed his

teeth, instructingone of the boys to pack a suit-case

for him. Major Smith asked him if he could tell

him anything about a lace frock his wife was

supposed to be wearing at the time the accident

happened.
 lO MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"I expect it has been washed," replied Knowles,

"thrown away, burnt or something."
Major Smith then examined the mosquito net,
and noticed that at the head of the bed there were

two smoked holes in it, about six inches from the

mattress. That is to say the holes were in two folds

of the net, which was there double. The hole was

on the net nearest the door. The sheets on the bed

where Dr. Knowles had been lying were stained.

blood-

"I am going to take possession of the net and

the sheet," said Smith.

"Take what you want," languidly replied

Knowles.

As the officer was removing the bedding he found

a revolver holster under the pillow. He showed it

to Knowles.

"They took the revolver yesterday," remarked

the latter. At that time he was sittingon a wicker

chair in front of the cupboard. He added, referring

to his wife, "I think she will roll up, you know."

Meaning, of course, that he thought she would die.

At this stage Mr. Morris discovered some stained

blood-

lady's garment in the dressing-room.

Between the two rooms there were louvred doors,
and the garment was hanging on one of these, as

though it had been carelessly thrown there. It

was examined and a hole was found in it which

might have been caused by a .455 bullet, or, the

police admitted, it might have been an ordinary

tear.
 THE PISTOL SHOT II

Mr. Hanson, a dispenser at Bekwai, who was

working under Dr. Knowles, then joined the search

party. It might be here explained that on the day

of the luncheon party Mr. Hansen had dispensed
medicine for Dr. Knowles. He had given him a

sleeping draught and sent him a hypodermic

syringe and some morphia. Dr. Knowles was being
assisted to dress by one of the boys. The doctor was

in a violent sweat. He had a whisky and soda and

one or two cigarettes.Just before his departure for

the hospital he turned to Mr. Hansen and said,

*'
Good-bye, Mr. Hansen, if I don't see you any
more." And at the same time he drew his hand

across his throat.

The party then set out. On the way to Kumasi

Dr. Knowles appeared quite normal, although he

continued in a violent sweat. Mr. Morris was in

the car, and Dr. Knowles conversed with him, said

he had not seen him before, and asked him if it

was his first tour. He continued to smoke cigarettes

and to doze occasionally. At Kumasi Major Smith

left Dr. Knowles in Mr. Morris' bungalow, while he

went to the warrant for arrest. While he was

procure

away Dr. Knowles appeared very upset and several

times repeated, "The whole business is very bad".

Mr. Morris then reminded him of the caution

which Major Smith had given him as to talking,

and he replied,"That's all right. I don't care what

happens to me, I am worried about my wife." A

little later he said, "If my wife rolls up it means a

murder case". And, still ignoring Major Smith's

12 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

warning, he observed, "It is a bad show and has

upset me very much. If my wife rolls up I will be

hung by the neck until I am dead". Then Major

Smith returned with the warrant, which, at the

request of Dr. Knowles, he read out as follows :

"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

GOLD COAST COLONY. Whereas Benjamin

Knowles, of Bekwai, is accused of the offence that

he on the 20th October, 1928, at Bekwai, and within

the jurisdictionof this Court, did use a certain arm,

fire-

to wit a revolver, with intent unlawfully to

cause dangerous harm to one Mrs. H. L. Knowles.

You are hereby commanded in His Majesty's name

forthwith to apprehend the said Benjamin Knowles

and produce him before the Court at Kumasi.

Issued at Kumasi the 22nd day of October, 1928.

(Signed) F. McDOWELL, Ag.C.J.A."

Dr. Knowles was in a pretty bad condition at this

time, and it is safe to say was not altogether respon-

sible
for what he said and did. When Major Smith

returned with the warrant he found him sitting

with a pail between his legs,in which Knowles had

been sick. After the warrant had been read, he

said, "I am under arrest now, am I ?" and Major

Smith replied,"Yes". Then Knowles said, "What
I am worrying about is where I shall sleep". He

then asked the officer,"Have you heard how the

missis is ?" Major Smith replied that he had not.

It was then 2.30 p.m.

 THE PISTOL SHOT I3

Major Smith then told Dr. Knowles that it would

be necessary that he should be present at the hospital

while his wife made her statement and they both

got into the car. As he was getting in, Knowles said,

"It is a bad show, if she rolls up I am afraid I am

for it". It is evidence irresponsiblemental

of his

condition that he kept repeating the same or similar

phrases. Then came the business of taking the state-

ment

of the dying Mrs. Knowles. It was a solemn

occasion, and as the Bible was being passed to Mrs.

Knowles, Dr. Knowles said to her, "Now, my dear,

tell the real truth ". To which Mrs. Knowles replied,
"I shall tell the real truth". Then came the taking
of the statement and the subsequent death of Mrs.

Knowles, as already described.

That same afternoon Dr. Knowles was brought

before the Police Magistrate and the District missioner,
Com-

and remanded for a week. Major Smith

had already had a sentry placed over the bungalow

of Dr. Knowles at Bekwai.

It might be mentioned here that after the ment

state-

had been taken from Mrs. Knowles, the latter

heard it stated that her husband was then under

arrest. She expressed surprise,and protested that

he could not have done it,as he was in bed at the

time. That was the last service the poor woman

was able to do her afflicted husband, for she expired

shortly after.
The following day a further search of the low
bunga-
at Bekwai was conducted by Major Smith, who

was accompanied by Assistant Commissioner of

14 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Police, Mr. Simmons, and Mr. Morris. tendent

Superin-
Afful was already there, and had discovered

a used revolver bullet, which Major Smith took

possession of. It appeared to be a .455. Thelouvred

doors were wide In the dressing-room Smith
open.
noticed a wardrobe, which had clothes in it. He
noticed a hole in it,with a crack which ran and
up
down from it. (Major Smith, I might remark, was

a veritable Sherlock Holmes and we shall presently

see how he carried out some curious tests.)
Major Smith closely examined the hole in the

wardrobe. He opened the door and found the wood-

work

round the hole inside was torn and jagged.

He came to the conclusion that it had been recently
done. On the first shelf were some female clothing
and immediately above was another impression as of

a bullet. There were no signs of a bullet mark on

the louvred doors. Both Mr. Morris and Mr.

Simmons were assistingin these examinations. A

little later Mr. Morris drew the attention of Major

Smith to the table by the bed. The top was made

of thin matchboard, and in this was a hole, which

seemed to Smith to have been caused by a bullet

and recently done. The fracture appeared new.

Major Smith then made the following test. He got

a length of string, held the end of it against the

impression at the back of the wardrobe, threaded it

through the hole in the door, continuing the string

in a straightline at the same angle, and it came to

the bullet mark on the top of the table. Continuing

the string further he found that it came approxi-
l6 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"Knowles, that lady, who was subject to occasional

fits of and
irritability wilfulness,did, in fact,fire the

revolver in question at the door of the wardrobe,

which accounted for the hole in the door and the

finding of the second bullet. Mrs. Knowles had

some knowledge of fire arms, and was used to

handling them, so it was not strange that she should

be playing about with the revolver in that manner.

Finally, therefore, the police had to adhere to

their original theory and the only tenable one,

namely, that the prisoner fired the revolver at his

wife in the heat of a quarrel,while he lay on the bed,

and as his wife was standing near in the act of

disrobing.
A very close search of the bungalow was made,
but no other bullet holes could be discovered. But

Major Smith was still anxious to trace Mrs. Knowles'

lace frock, the one that, according to her statement,
had caused the revolver to go off. It, however,
could nowhere be found. They even unsuccessfully
searched the latrine. Finally certain articles of

clothing and bits of furniture were removed from

the bungalow and taken possessionof by the police.

These included a chair, on the legs of which were

small spots of blood.

The positionnow was that Mrs. Knowles had died

from a revolver shot, her husband was in custody

charged with her murder and the police were very

busy building the case against him. The life of

up
Dr. Knowles was then in far greater jeopardy than

would be the life of a man charged with murder in

 THE PISTOL SHOT 17

this country. Dr. Knowles was now securely in a

snare from which it must have seemed to him that

it was hopeless for him to endeavour to extricate

himself It appears obvious that he was himself fully

conscious of the great peril in which he stood, as

indicated by his repeated hystericalutterances as to

his being ''for it" and so on.

Let us now describe why that peril to his life was

so great.
Having been brought before the Magistrate and

Commissioner in the lower court, he was duly

committed to take his trial at the Chief sioner's
Commis-

Court in the Eastern Province of Ashanti,

which was held at Kumasi, on November 13, 1928,
before His Honour Frank John James Foster Dowell,
Mc-

Acting Circuit Judge of Ashanti.

We shall now proceed to deal with this trial,
perhaps one of the most remarkable that ever was

held within British dominions.

(b)
The cause Rex versus Benjamin Knowles must

inevitably stand out prominently for all time in the

archives of British criminal trials. The prisoner was

charged with the murder of Harriet Louise Knowles,
contrary to Section 224 of the Criminal Code. The

prisoner pleaded Not Guilty. The Prosecution was

conducted by Mr. Piegrome, Commissioner of

Police. There was neither Solicitor nor Counsel for
the Defence. It is definitelylaid down by the laws
 l8 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

of Ashanti that "

In no cause or matter, civil or

criminal, shall the employment of a barrister or

solicitor be allowed". There or not be a

may may
jury, and this question seems to be within the power
of the Judge himself to decide. At all events there

was no jury at the trial of Dr. Knowles. Thus, in

this case, have the extraordinary situation of
you
the prosecution of a trial for murder being ducted
con-

by the police who bring the charge, and the

onus of defence being placed the shoulders of

upon
the accused man himself!
To give the evidence in detail would be but to

repeat much that has gone before. One need only

touch here and there salient and interesting
upon
incidents.
There were no opening speeches, the evidence

being taken at once. When the witness had given

his evidence-in-chief, the prisoner proceeded to

cross-examine him. The serious disadvantage this

was to the prisoner is at once obvious, for however

good his case may be, no man, especially one

finding himself in such a perilous position, is as

qualified to deal effectivelywith the evidence as

would a properly qualified barrister be. Dr.

Knowles did his best, and was occasionally successful

in discounting much of the evidence given against

him. This was the more noticeable when he made

reference to the dying statement of his wife. I give

a portion of his cross-examination of Dr. Gush :

Knowles: Had my wife full possession of her

mental faculties when she made her statement ?

 THE PISTOL SHOT I9

Gush: She certainly had.

Knowles: When she made the statement did

you think I was normal?"

Gush : I did not. I saw you arrive, you stumbled

up the steps, you were still very confused and very

dazed.

Knowles: Was there any sign I had taken

drugs ?

Gush: I think you had. I formed this

opinion,
that your condition both at the hospital and at

Bekwai was due to three conditions : Alcohol, opium

or morphia and shock at the accident.

(Notice that the witness describes it as an

"accident".)

Knowles: You know from the position of the

wounds there must have been a lot of blood ?

Gush: Yes.

Knowles: Ante-mortem, there must have been

a continuous stream of blood ?

Gush: Yes.

Knowles: Would not the first thing to do be to

stop the bleeding ?

Gush: Undoubtedly.
Knowles: And to enjoin absolute rest?

Gush: Perfectly correct.

Knowles : On your first examination would you
not think the wound might recover with rest, opiates
and stopping the haemorrhage "

you have seen cases

like that ?

Gush: I have.
20 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Knowles: She was under care for twenty-

my
four hours. Do think that, under the stances,
circum-
you
what I did was good practice ?
Gush: Yes.

Knowles also put the following interesting

questions to Mr. Mangin, the District Commissioner:
"Your bungalow is nearly the same type as

mine ?"

"Yes," replied Mangin.

"What is the bedroom temperature like?"

"Frightfullyhot," replied Mangin, "you can feel

the walls hot when touch them."
you
"It is too hot to sleep in pyjamas in the noon?"
after-

suggested Knowles.

"Yes," agreed the Commissioner, "I myself only

use a towel."
The object of these questions of course, to
was,

prove that the of Dr. Knowles in

appearance an

almost nude condition in his bungalow which, at

first glance, would seem to indicate a distraught

condition, was merely quite the usual thing in that

place.
He shook the evidence of Sampson under cross-

examination and made it clear that the servant

was not tellingthe truth in some details and that

he was prejudiced against his master. He also
cross-examined to some effect the police chief.
Major Smith. He upset that official's story about
the supposed line the bullet which killed Mrs.
Knowles had taken, and compelled Smith to admit
 THE PISTOL SHOT 21

that he knew nothing about the stopping power of

the human body.

When all the witnesses had been heard and cross-

examined, Dr. Knowles went into the witness-box

to give evidence in his own defence. As he had no

counsel he was called upon to make a statement.

Having been sworn, he proceeded to say cally

emphati-
that he did not murder his wife, nor did he

shoot her. He also maintained that there was no

evidence of intent. He declared that he was very

fond of his wife and that she was very fond of him.

There was no money trouble. The doctor then

went into some intimate details as to his wife's

natural condition which accounted for much of the

blood found in the bungalow. It also had some

bearing on the actual shooting, as to the stopping

power of his wife's body. These details may not be

given in a book of this kind, but must be taken for

granted.
Dr. Knowles admitted that there were occasional

quarrels between himself and his wife, and at such

times, he said, his wife, especiallyif she had taken

any drink, became hysterical. He also admitted

that at lunch on the day of the tragedy he himself

had had some drink, although he was perfectly

sober. After the guests had departed he and his

wife had one or two more drinks, and then a quarrel

arose "about nothing". It was so trivial in fact, he

explained, that he forgot all about it. For some

nights he had been sleeping badly and was fully

fright-
tired. He went to bed with a towel round him
22 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

and was soon asleep. He saw his wife come into the

room and start to undress. The next he remembered

was the hearing a shot fired. It woke him and he

up
heard his wife exclaim, "My God, I am shot!"

Immediately he jumped up and said, "Show me,

show me".

Mrs. Knowles was then only in her dressing-gown.

He examined her and saw a wound on her leg.
Blood was pouring out of it in a continuous stream.

His first instinct was to stop the bleeding. She was

in great pain. He got some cotton wool and

dissecting forceps and plugged the main wound

with iodine. It took some time to do this. He then

plugged the other wound in the abdomen and got

his wife into bed. She had been standing the whole

time. As she was still in great pain he gave her a

little brandy or whisky and milk. He then gave her

a sleeping draught. At the time he was perfectly

sober. He was sleepy but not drunk. He took some

"
of the draught himself His wife said to him, People
will think I have done this myself purposely".
Knowles replied,"All you have to do is to lie quiet.
I will take all the blame for it." He then referred

to the visit of Mr. Mangin, who, he said, he knew

could be of no assistance to him in regard to his

wife's recovery. He, Dr. Knowles himself, had done

all that was possible.

Such was Dr. Knowles' version of what happened
in the bedroom, which only he and his wife had any
personal knowledge of. He added some tions
observa-

about the prejudice and untruthfulness of the

24 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Knowles : My wife ran the house. He came with

a series of books (references)some of which did not

,

appear to be in a white man's writing. I showed

some to Mr. Mangin and told the boy to come back,

but Mrs. Knowles engaged him in the interval

against my advice.

Counsel : In spiteof your wishes to the contrary ?

Knowles: Exactly. I was doubtful if his monials

testi-

were genuine and she engaged him against

my advice.

Counsel: You say you had never seen Bonga

Fra Fra ?

Knowles: There are so many boys round my

kitchen I wouldn't have noticed him. Kofi (another
servant) is a Bekwai boy and there are many boys
round.

Counsel: You hadn't seen him around the

house ?

Knowles: I hadn't noticed him.

Counsel : I suggest you were in such a condition

from drink and drugs that you didn't see him ?

Knowles : Prior to the accident I was not ing

suffer-

from drink and drugs.

Counsel: I understand that your wife used to

beat you ?

Knowles: Sometimes when hystericaland after

a sillyargument. She was very concerned about it

after. It didn't hurt me and I didn't take it

seriously, nor did she.

Counsel: You went out of your way to show

bruises on your leg ?

 THE PISTOL SHOT 25

Knowles: Yes, I have. I never wore sock

may

suspenders and I may have just shown the bruises

by way of conversation. I didn't want any sympathy

or anything of that sort.

The object of the cross-examination was clearly

to that Dr. Knowles had some real grievance
prove
against his wife and a motive for killing her.

Counsel that he had said that he had

pointed out

fired the shot, but he protested that he did not. He

admitted that, under the influence of drugs, he had

stated that he had threatened to put a bullet through

his wife, but had not said that he had done so. He

had told his wife that he was prepared to take the

blame of having fired the shot, so that, apparently,

it should not be thought that Mrs. Knowles had

attempted to commit suicide. He confirmed his

wife's version of the accident. Counsel asked him why

the boy Sampson should lie,and Dr. Knowles replied,
*'He the boy who picked the bullets. He
was up
hated me. He rushed off to the police and has since
'

helped the police. He has said that I shouted Show

me' beforethe shot. That is a lie. It was afterthe

shot. There was nothing to shout about before.

There was a mutual dislike between us. Instead of

going to the police,a good type of boy would have

brought the bullets to me instead of pocketing them

and giving them to the police. He is a low down

Cameroon boy with no sense of honour or truth."

The cross-examination was a very long and

exhaustive and Dr. Knowles stood it well, and

one,
26 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

had he been tried by a jury he must have created

in their minds a deep impression of his innocence.

However, he did not appear to have done so in the

mind of the Judge, who, as no witnesses were called
for the defence, at once proceeded to sum up.
His lordship very carefullytraversed the evidence
which had been given for the prosecution, practi-
cally
tellingthe story of the alleged crime all over

again. In reference to the statement made by Mrs.

Knowles, he said,
"The accuracy of Mrs. Knowles' statement is

challenged by the prosecution, and the case for the

Court to decide is as to whether this was in fact an

accident or whether Mrs. Knowles' statement was

the untruthful effort of a to save

generous woman

her husband from the of a crime."

consequences
His
lordship'scomments on the rather loose and

irresponsible utterances of Dr. Knowles after the

shooting were as follows:

"As to the various remarks made to the police

officers and Mr. Hansen, the prisoner states that the
idea of murder never entered into his head, and that

he was acting under a fixed idea, which it would take

an expert psychologist to explain. To that one can

only say that from that it is clear from the remarks

'
already quoted "
If she rolls up I shall be hanged
by the neck until I am dead', etc. "
that the idea

of murder was in his mind, and that the somewhat

subtle defence of an obscure mental process by

which all these statements are merely tions
manifesta-

of a fixed idea to protect his wife and have no

 "
THE PISTOL SHOT 2^

relation to truth, is not one that can commend

itself to a Court of Law, without strong technical

evidence to support it. And it must be noted that

he never said it was an accident, but went out of his

way to show considerable provocation."

The summing-up was a long and rather rambling
one, and in its general drift was decidedly able
unfavour-

to the accused. His lordship concluded in the

following words:

"Taken as above the evidence against the

prisoner appears overwhelming.

"Now I have no reason to doubt that both Dr.

and Mrs. Knowles were extremely fond of each

other, but the menage was, I hope, a somewhat

unusual one amongst persons of the professional

class. It would appear that Mrs. Knowles was a

somewhat hystericalperson and, her husband hints,

addicted to drink. If his evidence is correct, she

had twice fired off a revolver past him to frighten

him and had bitten his ear. He had on at least two

occasions shown bruises inflicted by her, and as the

prisoner put it, 'She used to think an Indian club

was sufficient to stop an argument once or twice'.

"There is one point that should be mentioned in

his favour, and that is that his theory that the bullet

that passed through Mrs. Knowles' body, lost its

vis a tergo and might have kicked against the stead

bed-

would possibly be compatible with the furrow

on the bullet found by Kofi, but there is no evidence

that this was in fact the bullet that killed Mrs.

Knowles."
28 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

(This does not appear very lucid, but I will let it

go at that.)
His lordship concluded:
"
I confess that the real evidence is very confusing,
but I think that the evidence, including that

afforded by the prisoner himself, is overwhelming,

and I think there can be no reasonable doubt of the

prisoner'sguilt. From the nature of the defence I

am unable to say fully what was his mental state

at the time or what immediate provocation he had

received. I find the prisoner guilty of the murder

of his wife, Harriet Knowles."

A rather curious finish to a remarkable summing

Although, as his lordship says, the evidence is
up.
"very confusing", he still finds it "overwhelming"
against the accused!

In reply to this finding Dr. Knowles makes strong

protest, which, in the official report is referred to as

a "rambling statement". He rightly and ently

vehem-

protested, as a British citizen, against being

tried without a jury and without being allowed

counsel, for in the absence of the latter he was

unable to formulate his questions properly.

However, this protest was of no avail, and the

Judge proceeded in due course to sentence him to

death :

"Benjamin Knowles, the sentence of the Court

is that be taken to a place to be hereafter

you

appointed by the Governor and that there you be

hanged by the neck until you are dead. And may

the Lord have your soul."
mercy upon
 THE PISTOL SHOT 29

(c)
The sentence on Dr. Knowles was not carried

out, it being subsequently reduced by the Governor

to one of penal servitude for life. Dr. Knowles

was imprisoned in Ashanti, the prison in which he

was confined being staffed with black warders.

But Dr. Knowles had many friends in this

country among medical students, as well as in Aber-

deen,

his native town. There were also his sister

and his mother, who were prepared to make

sacrifices on his behalf. So steps were taken to assist

him and to prove that innocence in which they

had implicit faith. A solicitor was engaged and an

appeal was made to the Judicial Committee of the

Privy Council for permission to appeal. This was

at length granted and accordingly Dr. Knowles was

brought to this country and lodged in Maidstone

Prison pending the hearing of the appeal. As his

health was very bad he was received into the

hospital,where he remained until the conclusion

of the appeal. He was not able to appear in

court.

The Judicial Committee which sat to consider the

case of Dr. Knowles consisted of five judges, namely,

the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Dunedin, Lord

Darling, Lord Atkin and Lord Tankerton. They

sat in a large room, at a long table, in their ordinary
clothes. There was no scarlet and ermine. It was

in November, and cold. A cheerful fire burned

1929,
in a capacious grate justbehind their lordships,which
30 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

a sober-garbed official occasionally stoked. The

proceedings were conducted in a very sedate manner

and all voices were subdued to almost a whisper.

Dr. Knowles was represented by Mr. D. N. Pritt,
K.C., who stood at a desk situated near their

lordships, from which he read out, in a kind of

conversational voice, the details of this very able

remark-

case. During this recital the Judges made

passing and occasional comments, directed to vital

points in the evidence. For instance, when Mr.

Pritt related how Dr. Knowles had made the

observation about his wife "rolling up", the voice

'" '
of Lord Dunedin was heard remarking : Roll up ?

That's a slang expression I don't know."

Then Mr. Pritt came to his rescue by explaining,

"I think it means 'She will die'."

This seemed to satisfyLord Dunedin, who nodded

his head comprehensively.

"It is contended," pointed out Mr. Pritt, "by
the prosecution that there was a plot by Dr. Knowles

or his wife to hide the facts."

"Is there evidence of a plot?" asked Lord

any
Darling.
"No," replied Mr. Pritt emphatically.
Mr. Pritt then went on to read out the account

of the incident in the bedroom, when the shot was

fired which killed Mrs. Knowles. He pointed out

that the prosecution asserted that Mrs. Knowles,

who was known to be used to the handling of fire-arms,

would not do such a sillything as the defence had

stated she did, by sittingon the and so on.

weapon,
32 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

put a bullet through his wife, and the evidence of

the bruises on his leg as shown by Dr. Knowles. His

contention was that Dr. Knowles, while lying on

the bed, fired at his wife through the mosquito net.

"The position is this," he explained. "The man

is lying on the bed after a violent quarrel. The

revolver is within reach, and then a shot and a cry.

. . .
The native boys run over and fetch Mr.

Mangin, a neighbour. Dr. Knowles tells him he

doesn't want any help, and then calls the boys

together and is annoyed with them because they
have brought Mr. Mangin. Why is he annoyed ?"

"Perhaps he didn't want anybody butting in,"

suggested Lord Tankerton.

Sir William continued:

"After the shot, a hole is noticed in the mosquito

net which the native boys had not seen before. That

might have been made by a bullet. If it were, then

the revolver was fired by someone who was on the

bed. When Dr. Knowles' wife was dying he said,

'
If my wife rolls up I will be hanged by the neck

until I am dead'."

At this stage the Judges and counsel put their

heads together, as it were, and had a quiet little

conversation, taking the various points into sideration.

con-

Sir William Jowett agreed that the

phrasing of the judgment was not by any means

happy, although he maintained that the verdict was

not wrong. Lord Darling then pointed out that,

as there was no jury, the judge was not called upon
to say anything. But "
and this was a vital point "
 THE PISTOL SHOT 33

the Judge did not seem to consider the possibiUty of

a verdict of manslaughter.
"A Judge who condescends to reason gives a

hostage to fortune," retorted Sir William.

Sir William then proceeded to argue that if the

sleeve of Mrs. Knowles' lace dress "

which, by the way

was never found "

had caught in the trigger,the volver
re-

could not possiblyhave shot her in the thigh.

Lord Atkin then tried an experiment, in an

attempt to reconstruct the action. He half rose

from his chair and felt for an imaginary revolver

on the seat.

Then Lord Dunedin offered a suggestion:

"The lace dress may have been on the chair," he

said, "and the revolver got entangled in it. She

need not necessarilyhave been wearing it."

Finally Sir William said:

"If your lordships feel there is any reasonable

doubt about this man's guilt,so far as I am cerned

con-

I should like your lordships not to be too

strictlybound by legal considerations. I feel frankly

it would be very wrong for a man to spend his life

in prison if there is any reasonable doubt at all."

After which act of generous capitulation on the

part of counsel for the prosecution, the end seemed

pretty certain.
The Judges then went into a short conference and
announced their decision in these few but fateful

words :
*

"We propose humbly to advise His Majesty to

allow the appeal and quash the conviction."

34 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

These simple words were spoken in such a subdued

voice by the Lord Chancellor as to be almost a

whisper, but they brought joy to the hearts of

several people who were vitally concerned. In the

room were the sister of Dr. Knowles, Mrs. Ashby,

and the sister of the dead woman, both of whom

were deeply grateful at the result of the appeal.

Said Mrs. Knowles' sister:
"
I am glad. I am sure it is what my sister would
' '
have wished. In distant Aberdeen also there was the

mother of the prisoner,who was overjoyed at the news.

Dr. Knowles had been in prison over a year. In

the ordinary course of things he would have had

to remain in prison some weeks longer so that due

legal effect could be given to the finding of the

Judges. The case was unique and there was no

precedent. The Home Secretary, Mr. Clynes, ever,

how-

made his own precedent, and gave orders for

the immediate release of Dr. Knowles. The glad

tidings were conveyed to the doctor and steps
taken for his release. A large crowd was waiting
for the appearance of Dr. Knowles, and a ruse had

to be resorted to evade it. In a car was the doctor's

sister, his solicitor and a friend. This was driven

from one gate while Dr. Knowles was being

away
released from another and a private exit. The two

cars subsequently met about ten miles away and

the doctor entered the one containing his friends.

And so at long last the victim of African stantial

circum-

evidence was restored to freedom and the

welcome arms of his kith and kin.

 THE PISTOL SHOT 35

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, in

pronouncing their decision, notified counsel that

they would give their reasons for arriving at this

decision later. These reasons were embodied in a

printed document, which was issued four months

after the hearing of the appeal. It stated:

"
There was not the inquiry into whether,
slightest
assuming the shot was fired by the accused, the act

amounted to manslaughter and not murder. There

is no attempt to face the question of whether the

standard of proof required to prove murder as

against manslaughter has in this case been reached.

If the case had been before a jury and the Judge

had not explained to them the possibilityof a

verdict of manslaughter, but had said if not accident

the only alternative is murder, that would have been

an erroneous summing-up. That is what is to be

found in the judgment.

"Their lordships are therefore, as the learned

Judge failed to consider the question, bound to sider

con-

whether the evidence here reached the standard

of proof necessary to involve a conviction of murder.

They are clearly of opinion that it did not."

Thus ended this quite exceptional and unique

case of alleged murder, which certainly,I should
think, deserves to be included cases of
among
murders of mystery.

In reviewing the case one is struck with how it

seems to embody wellnigh all the elements requisite

for the construction of what one may term a perfect
case of miscarriage of justice. It is safe to say that
36 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

no writer of fiction would dare to venture on the

construction of such a plot, or even think of one of

such outrageous circumstance.

In the first instance, we have the abnormal scene

for the enaction of the tragedy, a remote and far-

flung corner of this vast empire. The climate which,

to an Englishman, must have had grave effects upon

his mental stamina and balance. The hectic and,

to a certain extent, irresponsiblelife. The almost

inevitable "
certainlypardonable "
recourse to drink

and drugs. The comparatively lonely life of Knowles

and his wife. The alien servants, with the animosity

of at least one of them. The habit of always keeping
a loaded firearm at the bedside "
which was adopted
on account of rumours of burglars "
and the carious
pre-

way in which it was sometimes handled.

Then you have to consider the bickerings of

Knowles and his wife, which, however, may not

have been of a very serious nature, yet serious

enough to play a vital part in the tragedy impending.

Then the enacted
tragedy itself, within the seclusion

of the bedroom, with no human eye to observe but

that of the victim and of her husband, yet withal the

ear, the malignant ear of the malicious native servant

without. Then you have the strange police ceedings

pro-
which, from first to last, do not seem to

have included the bare possibilityof the accused's

innocence, but were directed avidly and of single

to the effective running to earth of their
purpose

quarry. This partial and prejudiced research was

even extended to the Bench, as demonstrated by the

 THE PISTOL SHOT 37

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, for they

find that the Judge in Ashanti did not for a moment

consider the possibilityof manslaughter but was

intent exclusively upon proof of murder.

Then you have the remarkable method of criminal

procedure, that deprived the prisoner of the right

of being tried by a jury and callously denied him

the professionaland skilful services of either solicitor

or counsel. Thus they left him forlorn indeed and

isolated, called upon to defend himself in primitive

form against all the power that the local State could

bring to bear upon him. That he was condemned

is scarcely to be wondered at and that the Governor

subsequently decided to forgo the last grim mony

cere-

cannot unfortunately be accounted to either

an acute sense of justiceor mercy on the part of those

nearest and officiallyconcerned. It would seem,

rather, that, after mature and temperate tion,

considera-

the official mind was somewhat shaken at the

contemplation of consummating what might yet

prove to be a woeful misconception of law and justice.
Dr. Knowles passed through a terrible ordeal,
literally
through the shadow of the valley of death.

That he eventually emerged from it a free man one

can regard as little short of miraculous. We need

not entertain any doubt as to his innocence. We

should give full credence to that solemn utterance

of his dying wife "

which the legalpowers of Ashanti

shamefully discredited "

that the shooting of herself

was the result of a vicarious act, and not an act of

homicide on the part of her husband.
 II

THE SILENT HOUR

{The Case of Louisa Maud Steele^Blackheath,

January^ 1931O

On the evening of Thursday, January 23rd5 1 93 1

,

about eight o'clock, Miss Louisa Steele, a domestic

servant, left her place of employment, in Lee Road,

Lewisham, for the of making one or two
purpose
local calls. She was expected back again about

nine. She had to call at a house a few yards away,

in order to return a book to a neighbour which her

mistress had borrowed. Then she would go on to

a chemist's shop to obtain some medicine. The

night was wet and windy, therefore it was not

supposed that she would remain out of doors longer

than was necessary.
It was not Miss Steele's usual day or evening
out, but she enjoyed a good deal of freedom with

her mistress, a Miss Andrews, a professor of music,

and at all times could go out if she wished to. The

previous day, Wednesday, she had her usual half-

day out, when she visited her parents at Ann

Street, Plumstead. Upon that occasion she visited

a
relation in hospital, and when she returned she

asked one
of her brothers if he would go to the

38
40 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

path. He reckoned the time then was 7.40. He

was walking on the grass. The object was lying

on a left incline from where he was walking, about

twenty yards away. He at first thought that it

was a bundle of clothes somebody had left there.

When he approached nearer, however, he covered

dis-

to his amazement that it was the body of

a woman.

He could see her head and hair. Also the top

part of her shoulders and her right arm, which

was bent above her head. Her coat was over the

rest of the body, except one knee, which was bent

and showing. She was lying on her back. The coat

was a woman's dark coloured coat, with fur cuffs.

There was also a dark, navy-blue garment beside

her. There was a path about thirty yards away,

and on this Hall saw a cyclist,and he called to him.

He told him to fetch a policeman, and the cyclist

did so. He was away about twenty minutes, during
which time Hall kept guard over the body. At the

moment he found the body. Hall saw nobody

else on the heath.

When the local police realised that a brutal and

mysterious murder had been committed, they at
once communicated with Scotland Yard, and the

case was put into the capable and experienced

hands of Chief Superintendent Ashley and tendent
Superin-
Charles Cooper, who were soon on the spot,
bringing with them many assistants. In fact the

full force of the C.I.D. was brought to bear upon

what was realised was a very important case. At
 THE SILENT HOUR 4I

one time there were no fewer than a hundred

detectives working on it at the same time.

The body proved to be that of the missing girl,

Louisa Steele. She had been killed in a very savage

manner. She had been strangled, a tape in the

neck of her dress having been utilised for the pose.

pur-
In addition to this there were various

mutilations about the face and neck. At first it was

thought to be another "Ripper" murder, no doubt

in consequence of these same mutilations. But this

soon proved not to be the case, for the method of

the murder was found to be quite distinct from

that which was invariably adopted by that notorious

and still undiscovered criminal.

After Scotland Yard had taken many graphs

photo-
of the body where it lay, it was removed

to the Greenwich mortuary. The murder was one

of a perfectly frantic description, for the tunate

unfor-

girl'sclothes had been torn from her body.

But there was no evidence that any attempt had

been made to outrage her. It seemed clear that

the murderer had crept up behind Miss Steele and

so sudden and savage was his attack that the victim

had no chance to scream or call out. She must

have died within a few minutes without making a

sound.

What possible motive could there be for such a

murder as this ? There was apparently no motive

whatever, if one omits that of mere blood lust.

The sheer lust of killing,which occurs sometimes

with members of the human race, which is not
42 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

characteristic, though, of the beasts of the field,

who generally kill for food. There was the theory
that the murder was the work of a roving maniac,
and certainly the very nature of the attack would

readily suggest this. It was the opinion of the

police at the time and I believe still is. One is

simply driven to this conclusion in the absence of

any other possible and rational explanation.

As has already been pointed out, the police
worked very hard on the case, carrying on their

close investigations throughout the twenty-four

hours by means of relays of officers. The tragedy
naturally created considerable alarm in the district,
particularly among women, who carefully avoided
the heath during the hours of darkness. They were,
in fact, warned by the police to keep away, for it

soon came to light that several other women had

been attacked by a mysterious assailant just prior

to the murder of Miss Steele.

It was at first thought that the murder had been

committed elsewhere and the body brought to the

heath by motor car, but this was found not to be

so. The murder was undoubtedly committed at or

near the spot where the body was found. body

Some-

reported to the police that between seven and

eight p.m. on the Thursday night, a man was seen

crossing the heath from Shooters Hill, on a road

that runs near the Princess of Wales pond. With

him was a girl, who was crying. This attracted a

passer-by,and the man, seeing that he was observed,

left the girl and came to the passer-by in an
up
 THE SILENT HOUR 43

aggressive manner and asked why he was being

watched. The girl then remonstrated with him,
requesting him to "Come back, Jack. Leave him

alone."

A description of this man was given as follows :

*'Age about 25. Height 5ft. Sin. Clean shaven,

with a pale face and a twisted lower lip. On the

right side of his face is a newly-made scratch.

Dressed in a worn mackintosh, light coloured, and

of an Army pattern. Hat, a dirty,soft-greyone, and

voice rather coarse."

This description was broadcast by the B.B.C.

The policeappealed to this man to come forward,

as he might or might not be of assistance to them.

The coroner's inquest on the body of Miss Steele

was opened on Tuesday, January 27th, by the

Greenwich Coroner, Dr. H. S. Knight. It was

adjourned until February 17th, in order that Sir

Bernard Spilsbury, the well-known pathologist,

might make a thorough examination of the body.
There were no women on the jury. Detective-

Superintendent Cooper, with other Scotland Yard

detectives, were present in court.

The parents of the dead girl,Mr. and Mrs. Steele,

who were dressed in black, were seated near the
fire. Both were weeping and presented a sad

spectacle. The father took the stand first. He was

a tall, grey-haired man, and was described as a

general labourer. He had identified the body. His

evidence was brief and merely consisted of a

descriptionof the visit paid to him by his daughter

44 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

the day prior to the murder and which has already

been alluded to. He was followed by Miss Andrews,
the sister of the dead girl'semployer, also dressed

in black. She stated that she lived at the house in

Lee Road with her sister and her father, who was

a retired gun manufacturer.

"Had you employed Miss Steele for a long

time?" asked the coroner.

"Just over two years as general help," replied

Miss Andrews. "She slept in."
"Was it usual for her to go for a walk after

supper?" asked the coroner.

"Always on Tuesdays and Thursdays," replied

Miss Andrews, "she generally started out about a

quarter to eight. Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday

were her half-days and evenings out. On day
Wednes-

and Sunday she went out after lunch. On

Saturday she went out at 5 p.m. She was free on

these days until 10 p.m. She was always very

regular in returning, and sometimes came back at

8.45 p.m."
Miss Andrews further explained that the girl
performed her duties in the normal way on the

Thursday, and did not know whether she would be

able to go out that evening, as they were expecting^

a relative to supper. Thus she would not be likely
to have made any arrangement for that night. It

would be improbable that she would have made

an appointment with anybody.

In the evening Miss Andrews went to a Sunday
school treat, leaving her sister.Miss Mabel Andrews,
 THE SILENT HOUR 45

in charge until half-past nine. In the meantime

Miss Mabel Andrews sent the girl to take back a

book, which she had borrowed, to a friend's house,

a few doors up the road. After that she was to go

to a chemist's shop, should it be open. After that

Miss Steele was to be at liberty to go for a short

walk, but it was thought more likelythat she would

return at once to the house. She had to fetch some

of senna from the chemist's. If she got it

syrup
she would probably return at once. If not she might
take a walk, probably along Belmont Hill.

"She had your permission for such a walk?"

asked the coroner.

"Yes," replied Miss Andrews, "but she had been

warned against going on the heath, or any side

walks."

When she left the house, the girl was wearing a

black coat, with a brown fur collar and cuffs,brown

felt hat, black frock with a green neckband and a

silk scarf She left shortly before eight o'clock. It

was subsequently ascertained that, although she duly

returned the book, she did not obtain the medicine.

"As far as you know," asked the coroner, "did

she have any young men or followers ?"

"None," replied Miss Andrews.

"She was a quiet, modest girl," continued the

coroner, "and well-conducted?"

"Yes," replied Miss Andrews.

The inquest was resumed and concluded on

February 17th. Before the court opened tendent

Superin-
Cooper had a long conference with the
46 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

coroner, and they both studied a large map of the

heath which was fastened to the wall. Sir Bernard

Spilsburywas present to give evidence, and he also

had a short conference with the coroner before

entering the witness-box. The father of the dead

girl was also present in court.

Sir Bernard Spilsbury's evidence was to the

effect that he had made a post-mortem tion

examina-

on January 23rd. The lips were livid. There

were many small haemorrhages in the whites of the

eyes and in the skin of the forehead, the root of the

nose, and round the eyes and cheeks. The tongue

was between the teeth, and across the front and

sides of the neck was a shallow depression,crossing

the Adam's apple in front. Above this,on the right
side, was a bruise, and two below it. Beneath the

right eye there was a roughly rectangular abrasion,

running across the cheek, with fine parallel
scratches traversing it. The right bone of the nose

was fractured, and there was also bruising of the

deeper tissues beneath all the facial injuries.

There were also some terrible injuries on the

body, which Sir Bernard described in detail. He

pointed out that there were some wounds,

superficial
which had the of having been inflicted
appearance
with teeth. There were no injuries to either the

skull or the spine. The brain and its covering were

congested.
There were bloodstains on the clothing, which

had been torn, probably, explained Sir Bernard,

while being removed from the body. There were
48 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

the fact that there was blood the ground, it

upon
seems pretty certain that the injurieswere inflicted

on the spot."
Sir Bernard added that there was no indication
of any attempt at violation.
In reply to a juror, Sir Bernard explained that
the strangulation would not have required a very
great deal of pressure, and that if the tape were

pulled from behind, such would produce

pressure
unconsciousness in a short time, and death
very
would ensue within five or ten minutes. It would

not make much difference if the were

pressure
released before death had actually occurred.
"I really wanted to know," continued the juror,
"if the girl was unconscious immediately she was

attacked?"

"Yes," replied Sir Bernard, "she would lose

consciousness in a few seconds and never regain

consciousness."

That concluded the evidence of Sir Bernard

Spilsbury, and his place in the witness-box was

taken by Miss Kathleen Andrews, professor of

music, by whom Miss Steele was employed. Her

evidence differed somewhat from that of her sister,

given at the last hearing. She said the girl left the

house about ten minutes to eight on January 22nd,

and was to have gone across the road to a friend's

house, and then on to the butcher's. The girl

usually took a walk after supper, but she was

almost always home by about nine o'clock, although

allowed out till ten. She said that when the girl
 THE SILENT HOUR 49

did not return she became very alarmed. At eleven

o'clock she notified the police.

**She was a good girl?" said the coroner.

**Yes," replied the witness. "She had been in

my employ for two years. I knew of no ances

acquaint-
to keep the girl out. There were no young
men. She always seemed to be a decent, modest,
hard-working girl,and was perfectly happy."
The returning of the book was testified to by the

friend who received it from the girl.

Then came some interesting evidence from a

clerk, living at New Cross, who on the night of the

tragedy, was on Blackheath with a lady friend.

They sat on a seat near Shooters Hill Road until

a quarter past nine. They then left to go towards

Greenwich. They walked across the road on to

the footpath and continued about two-thirds of

the way, when they left it to go on to the grass.

They stopped to talk, and then noticed something
on the grass, about seven to ten yards away. They,
could not make out what it was, but it looked like

a couple on the ground. There was no movement,

but there was a covering which looked like a black

coat. They could see part of a head beneath the

coat.

They had heard no disturbance or quarrelling on

any other seat, nor did they see anything in the

nature of a scuffle in the direction of the object on

the grass. Then they went on their way.

On January 23rd a hat was found on the heath,
and this was produced in court and identified
50 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

by Miss Andrews as having belonged to Miss

Steele.

Detective Inspector Cory, of Scotland Yard, was

the next witness. He described how he found the

body, and produced a small shoe, the heel of which

was found in the girl'sleft hand. A blue scarf was

also found about thirty yards away. The officer

further explained that since the crime was reported

very extensive inquiries had been made, but they
had been unable to find anyone who was with the

girl after she had left her employer's premises.

"I suppose you have delved very deeply into the

life of this girl?" asked the coroner.

"Yes," replied Inspector Cory, "and the result

has been that undoubtedly she was a girl of fine

character "
good moral character. She was a girl
of very few friends, and, so far as we can ascertain,
no male friends."

"You found no undesirable acquaintances?"

said the coroner.

Not a trace of any," replied Cory.

Did anything strike you about the injuries?"
asked the coroner.

"The only inference one can draw is," replied

the officer,"that it was done by a maniac. There

is not the slightestdoubt."

That concluded the evidence and the coroner

proceeded to sum up.

I do not think," he said, addressing the jury,
it will be any advantage to take up your time

further in the hope that something may turn up.

 THE SILENT HOUR 5I

Considerably over a thousand statements have been

taken from persons thought to have anything to do

with it, and hundreds of people who just happened

to be living near have been questioned. It is

obvious the girl was murdered in a most violent

and terrible manner. It may be that it was

an insane person, and that person may have no

recollection of the matter. He may even be

sheltered by someone who has no knowledge of it

at the present time. (It will be recalled that much

the same observations were made about the

notorious 'Jack the Ripper'.) But you are not

concerned with the mentality of the murderer."

The jury then returned their "open" verdict

without leaving the box.

The coroner then again addressed them:

"You have heard that the police have most
gone
completely into the past of this girl. Sir Bernard

Spilsbury has told you that she was a girl.

pure
Whenever anything happens to a girl like
young
this, gossip is very likelyto draw a wrong inference,
and it is as well that should have these facts
you
before you. Both her mistresses had a high
very
opinion of her, and her past life has stood the
concentrated attention of
experienced police officers
for three weeks. I think, perhaps, that should be

stated, because often it does injury to the character

of a person who has the misfortune to meet with
such a terrible end."
This was a rather scathing comment on the
attitude of mind of supposed Christians. So it
 52 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

seems that a
person may not even be murdered

under certain circumstances without having their

moral character Hghtly dealt with. In this nection

con-

one is reminded of the words of the late

Jerome K. Jerome, which occur in his book, My

Life and Times^ and in which he sums up the whole

human race as: "still of low intelligenceand evil

instincts." Alas!

The last words which were uttered in the public

recital of this most poignant tragedy, emanated

from the distracted father of the murdered girl,

who, in heart-fervent tones, exclaimed:
" "
I would like to meet him !

Referring, of course, to the murderer.

The police also would have been very glad to

have met him. But it was not to be. And it is

certainly due to no fault of theirs that the mystery

remains unsolved. It was and is an unsolvable

mystery. Out of the blue, as it were, and the void

and the fancied peaceful seclusion of that pleasant

suburb, the hand of a violent and relentless assassin

was thrust and summarily crushed the life out of

that innocent child, while indulging in a healthful

walk upon the wind-swept heath. And then was

again! It is really very disturbing, and

gone
reminds one of the distant past, when London,
particularlyouter London, was a place of insecurity
and peril, and where after dark one had to walk

with cautious step.

The main difficultywith which the police were

faced, as they themselves admitted, was to account

 THE SILENT HOUR 53

for the movements of the girl between the hour

she left the house in Lee Road to the presumed

time of the murder, about nine o'clock. As she left

home about eight, this left one hour unaccounted

for "
the silent hour, as it were. The police, in

spite of their very close and prolonged tions,

investiga-
failed to discover anyone who was in a position
to say that they either saw or spoke to or heard

anything about Miss Steele during that hour.

What became of her, what did she do and where

did she go, during that time ? There was no

definite reply to these queries forthcoming. Thus

the police found themselves up against a blank

wall in their researches and could go no further.

Let us, however, try to throw some light upon

this dark hour.

We know that Miss Steele left the house in Lee

Road for the purpose of making certain calls. One

was to return a borrowed book to the owner, who

lived a few yards away. This call was made and

the lady who received the book from the girl said
she saw nobody, no man, loitering about near the
house at the time she received the book from the

girl. The next call was evidently to be made at a

shop, which also would not be far away. Miss

Kathleen Andrews said the girl was next to call at

a butcher's shop, but her sister said that it was at a

chemist's she was to call and fetch a certain cine.

medi-
It does not matter very much, however,
which shop it was, or whether it was both. The
evidence is that she did not in fact call at either.
54 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

So far as can be ascertained she did not make any

other call after she left the book in Lee Road.

Therefore it seems that, since the place of the next

call could not have been far away, something must

have happened to her soon after she had left the

house in Lee Road. What was it ? Did she meet

somebody and go straight for a walk upon the

heath ? Not at all likely. There is ample evidence

that the girlwould not have neglected to have made

the call or calls at the shops. Then how are we to

account for her actions subsequent to the first call ?

I think they may be accounted for in this way:

I will rule out the suggestion that she met body.

some-

It is highly improbable that she would be

indulging in a secret meeting with anybody, she

was not that kind of girl. It is true that the police

discovered among her belongings an unfinished

letter,addressed to "My dear Jack." At first they

reasonably supposed that they had alighted upon
a valuable clue. They found the young man to

whom the letter was being written and soon became

convinced that he had nothing to do with the

murder, nor was he in a position to assist them in

He was just a friend of the girl's,but

any way.
who knew little about her movements. Thus,
I say, we must rule out of our consideration any
idea of a prearranged meeting.
This, then, it seems to me is what might have

happened : Having made the first call,she at once

made her towards the shops, only to find them

way
shut. There does not appear to have been any
56 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

the killing,which may have occurred some time

before. So that the time between the girl'scall in

Lee Road and the actual murder may not have

been so long as was supposed.

If this theory be correct and thus accounts

for the girl'smovements during the "silent hour,"

it does not, unfortunately, do anything further

towards solving the mystery. It was this dumb

hour which so bothered the police. They said that

if they could have found somebody who saw or

talked with the girlduring that period, they would

have been able to on their investigations

carry
much more effectively. It seems pretty clear,
however, that she did not meet anybody during
that time other than her slayer. Nor, under the

circumstances, would she be likely to, as can be

readily understood. A young woman who "keeps

herself to herself," as this young woman seemed

to have been in the habit of doing, would not be

likelyto meet and chat with anybody while taking

a little stroll on her own. Particularly as it was at

night and on a wide stretch of heath.

If,on the other hand, you rule out the suggestion

of the shops being shut, then the mystery is im-
penetrab

For argue as you may there is no

discoverable reason why Miss Steele, a steady and

quiet girl and devoted to the interests of her

employers, should have failed to make the other

calls. It is true that from the moment she left the

house where she returned the book, her ments

move-

became enshrouded in mystery and there is

 THE SILENT HOUR 57

no accounting provided, I repeat, you

for them,
dismiss the idea of the closed shops. In the ordinary-

course of things it seems highly improbable that

the girl would have failed to make the calls at the

shops, and the fact that she did not do so, leaves

one vainly guessing.

That she went on to the heath of her own accord

seems beyond all doubt. But that she would go

straight there without first calling at the shops

seems highly improbable. Therefore, what pened
hap-
to take her on to the heath without first

calling at the shops ? The most likelyexplanation

is the with somebody that she knew. But
meeting
there is no evidence at all of this, and the known

character of the girl,and the circumstances of her

life, are all against it. The idea that she was

kidnapped, as it were, before she had time to go

to the shops, and then taken on to the heath, is

too wild to be entertained. What, then, happened

to her ?

That there was a homicidal lunatic roaming

about the district at the time, appears obvious.

As has already been pointed out, several young

women were attacked by a mysterious assailant

shortly before Miss Steele met her death. One of

these women described how a man suddenly

appeared and made a grab at her neck, but that

she screamed so loudly that the man became

alarmed and made off. That young woman was

fortunate in being able to scream, and very likely

owed her life to the opportunity given her to raise
58 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

an alarm so quickly. It seems that the murderer,

realising that he failed in that instance through
the noise raised by his intended victim, made sure

of Miss Steele by not giving her an opportunity of

screaming. As Sir Bernard Spilsbury said, he must

have come up behind her and grabbed her round

the neck so suddenly and tightly as to cause her

to become unconscious almost at once.

What became of him ? Not a trace of him was

to be found, either of his coming or his going. He

came like a shadow and so departed. The only

clue, if such it could be called, as to his retreat,
was supplied by somebody who saw a strange man

call at a wayside cafe at Catford, about two miles

from Blackheath, in the early hours of the morning

following the murder. He was noticed to be very
agitated and that there was blood on his hands

and face. He drank a cup of coffee and then

hurried away. The police followed up this clue

at once and made extensive inquiries on the spot,

warning all sorts and conditions of people to keep
their eyes open for this individual. They also

questioned innumerable persons who might possibly

have seen the mysterious bloodstained man. All

to no purpose, however. He was never traced.

Thus he remained and still remains as elusive as

the notorious "Jack the Ripper", who at one time

he was thought to be. But as the Ripper murders

occurred over forty years ago, this was hardly

likely.
Well, there the matter rests. It may be that the
 THE SILENT HOUR 59

truth will eventually come to light, and the police

be enabled to finish the job which they have had

in tlie meantime to "pigeon-hole". But certainly

at the moment it does not seem at all likely.

In July, 1 a girl named Ivy Godden

93 1, young

was murdered near her home at Ruckinge, a village

near Ashford, in Kent. She was missing for two

days, when her body was found buried in a wood

not far Suspicion fixed

away. soon upon a young

man named Salvage, a poultry farmer, of the same

place. He was promptly arrested and charged with

the murder. The motive was vague. He was

eventually tried at the Old Bailey, having in the

meantime retracted his confession and put in a plea

of Not Guilty. He however, convicted and
was,

being pronounced insane, consigned to Broadmoor

Asylum, D.H.M.P.

While awaiting trial he also confessed to the

murder on Blackheath, the details of which are

given in the foregoing narrative. An investigation

was duly held and it was then made obvious that

it was quite impossible that Salvage could have

committed the Blackheath murder. The confession

was merely a symptom of his mental derangement.

 Ill

THE STILL TONGUE

{The Case of Miss Margery Wren^ Ramsgate,

September, 1930.)

About six o'clock on a Saturday evening in

September, little girl named Ellen Marvell,

1930, a

called at a
small general shop, situated in Church

Road, Ramsgate, and kept by an aged maiden

lady, named Miss Margery Wren, for the

purpose
of making a purchase. She found Miss Wren in a

prostrate condition in the shop and quite unable

to serve her. Alarmed, the girl returned home and

told her father. The latter at once went to the shop

and saw Miss Wren, who had evidently been

severely injured in some way or other. He spoke

to her and asked her what was the matter, in that

general which people do.

way
"I have just had a tumble," replied Miss Wren,
"that's all."

But this reply did not satisfy her neighbour, who

sent his little girl for a doctor and himself went for

the police. Soon after the Chief Constable of

Ramsgate, Mr. S. F. Butler, arrived on the scene.

He was so impressed with what he saw at the shop

that he at once communicated with Scotland Yard,
60
 THE STILL TONGUE 6l

which brought Chief Inspector Hambrook and

Detective Sergeant Carson to Ramsgatc, they having

been given charge of the case.

Miss Wren was removed to hospital in a very

weak condition. It was clearly a case of murder,
and why the victim should have tried to create the

impression that her injurieswere the result of an

accident was and still is a mystery. She had been

savagely attacked with a pair of tongs, which were

found on the premises, bloodstained and with hair

clinging to them. With these Miss Wren had been

battered about the head.

Miss Wren was eighty-two years old, and had

formerly lived with a sister who, however, had died

about two years before. Since then Miss Wren

had been living alone. She was supposed by some

people "

neighbours mostly " to be possessed of siderable

con-

means. Upon examination of the will of

Miss Jane Wren "

the sister " at Somerset House,
it was found that she had died
leaving property
valued at ^^2 1 1 2^. "]d.She appointed Mr. Stewart
Watson Oldershaw, solicitor,of Lincoln's Inn, and

Mr. Harry Jarratt, insurance agent, of Picton Road,

Ramsgate, to act as executors and trustees. Her

furniture and personal effects she left to her sister,

Margery Wren. She also directed that her freehold

cottage and shop, together with the goodwill of the

business, should be held in trust, the income to be

paid to the sister. On the death of the latter it

was to pass to Richard Archibald, Chapel Place,

Ramsgate.
62 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Living as Miss Wren did, entirely alone, it was

not surprising that she was supposed to have a

good deal of money hidden somewhere on the

premises. It seems inevitable that when either a

man or woman elects to live alone that they should

acquire the reputation of being a miser and in the

habit of hoarding large sums of money on the

premises. This, however, proved not to be so in

the case of Miss Wren. There certainly was money

on the premises, and it was found in various strange

and unexpected places,hidden in various receptacles
in all parts of the house, but in the aggregate it

did not amount to much. They were all small

sums, just a few shillings,and so on.

Not a very big business was done at the shop,

which was regarded as the "tuck shop" by the

children of St. George's School, situated nearby.

In fact Miss Wren drew most of her customers

from this school. And so small was the business that

it was the opinion of her relatives that had it not

been for her private means she would have been

unable to carry on.

So severe were the injuries inflicted upon the

unfortunate lady that she lingered but a few hours

and died on the following day. She died, it may

be added, without furnishing the police with the

slightestclue as to the identity of her slayer. She

was unconscious most of the time, but during her

brief periods of consciousness she uttered words

which would appear to make it quite clear that

she was not murdered for plunder. In fact it was

 64 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

The Chief Constable of Ramsgate made the

following public announcement:

"The police are now convinced beyond all doubt

that Miss Margery Wren was the victim of a brutal

"
and savage murder. This disposes of any theory
that still exist in the minds of the public to
may
the effect that Miss Wren may have met her death

by accident.

"I earnestly appeal to any person entering or

leaving the shop between the hours of 2 p.m. and

6 p.m. on Saturday last,or to anyone who saw any

person in the vicinity of the shop or entering or

leaving the premises between these hours, to municate

com-

with me at once."

As usual under such circumstances, the police

were called to interview many people in the
upon
matter, and to receive various statements. A young

woman, for instance, called at the police station

and said she saw a man, whose descriptionshe gave,

loiteringnear the shop about an hour before the

time Miss Wren was found injured. The statement

was confirmed by another woman who lived near.

This supposed clue was followed up by the police

but, like many other statements investigated by
them, it unfortunately led to nothing. In the first

place these descriptions are usually very vague,

and are rather difficult to deal with. Also at such

times people become inspired and ultra-suspicious,

and quite trivial incidents and innocent persons
become magnified in their minds as something or

somebody portentous. Very often when such

 THE STILL TONGUE 65
suspected are traced they prove to have
persons
had nothing at all to do with the tragedy. All of

which adds considerably to the difficulties of the

task before the police. And it has this unfortunate

"result: It puts the police on to the wrong scent, and-

while they are following a false track they are

unconsciously and, of course, unintentionally,aiding

the culpritin making his get-away. Time is a most

important factor in such an investigation, and

every hour, even every minute, that elapsesbetween
discovery and arrest automatically increases the

difficultyof pursuit,and widens the distance between

the police and their quarry.
Finger-prints were fouild on the premises, and

these were dealt with by Detective Inspector

Greville, the head of the Finger-print Department
at Scotland Yard, but this unfortunately led to no

practical result. Many photographs were taken

inside the house, and the bloodstained tongs mitted

sub-

to the closest scientific tests. In the shop

was found a small linen handkerchief, which was

at first thought to be a valuable clue. It bore a

certain name, and the owner was eventually traced

and proved to be a ten-year-old boy, whose father

had an office near the shop. Both the boy and his

father went to the police-stationand identified the

handkerchief It was one of a half-dozen which an

aunt had sent as a present for the little boy and

his brother. They had been marked by the mother,
so that the boys should not quarrel over them.
All but the one in question had since been lost.
66 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Apparently this one had been dropped by the boy

while in the shop making a purchase. The police
were satisfied with the explanation. And so away
went another "valuable clue". It was very appointi
dis-

One particular man who was under suspicion

was taken to the station, where he was detained

several hours, during which time he was subjected

to repeated questioning. Apparently his answers

proved satisfactory,for he was afterwards released

and was not again interrogated.

Some interesting details as to the deceased

woman's relations were furnished by a female cousin.

It appeared that Miss Wren, in her will, left the

contents of her shop and any other property she

possessed, to be divided between the aforesaid

cousin and the latter's sister,both of whom also

lived in Ramsgate. One of these cousins had been

a widow for twenty-seven years and had seven

children. One of these was a Police Constable in

the Metropolitan Police Force. At the time he

was spending his holiday at Ramsgate and in

consequence of the tragic happening at the "tuck

shop", had been granted an extension of leave.

Miss Wren had been seen by her cousin, the

widow, on the day of the murder, and she then

seemed as usual. She was getting feeble and was,

being "old-fashioned", as it is called, in the habit

of wearing long skirts,which occasionally tripped

her as she went along. It was also recorded
up
by the cousin that about five or six months ago
 THE STILL TONGUE 67
Miss Wren had fallen while trying to reach some

boxes on a shelf, and had injured her face. All of

which facts have no relevant bearing on the tragedy,

which was clearly that of murder. The supposition
of accident, which had at first been entertained, had

since been ruled out of consideration.

At one stage of their investigations the police

made a "reconstruction" of the crime, which was

quite in the French way of dealing with such a legal

tragedy. They enlisted the services of a female

neighbour of Miss Wren's, who impersonated the

dead woman. She followed the supposed ments
move-

of Miss Wren on the day of the murder,

walked into the shop, assumed certain and
poses
sat in Miss Wren's chair. All the while
police the

were activelyemployed in taking photographs and

making copious notes.

A good deal of importance was attached to the

nature of the wounds received by Miss Wren. It

was thought that she was first attacked while sitting

in the chair, and that afterwards she fell to the

ground. Her assailant then delivered the majority

of the blows. There were some peculiar marks on

the throat, which indicated that she had been

clutched there by her murderer, either in an

attempt to strangle her, or in order to stifle her

cries. It was also thought that an effort had been
made to her. Church Road
gag was very quiet
on a Saturday afternoon, with little or no traffic
passing, yet nobody appeared to have heard
any
screams or cries coming from the tuck shop.
68 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Mrs. Cook, the elderly cousin of Miss Wren, did

all she could to assist the police. Unfortunately

this was not much, so unexpected and mysterious
was the whole affair. For some years Mrs. Cook

had been in close touch with Miss Wren, but was

unable to give the name of any man who might

have been acquainted with or had any dealings
with Miss Wren. She had never heard the deceased

speak of anybody but in a friendly way. So that

the man who entered the shop and committed the

murder was to all concerned, "a man of mystery."

It was known, however, that Miss Wren had lent

various sums of money, but these were probably

merely small sums, and the deceased made no

reference to the transactions. There appeared

to be a good deal of doubt as to how much money
Miss Wren had on the premises, whether she had a

"secret hoard" and whether the small sums found

were all that possessed. she

An interestingfact which came to light during

the investigations was that the deceased lady

belonged to a family which was distantlyconnected
with that of Sir Christopher Wren, and that of

Admiral Wren, a naval officer of generations ago,

whose portraithung on the wall of the sitting-room

of the shop in Church Road.

The post-mortem examination made by Sir

Bernard Spilsbury added fresh and significant

details to the tragic story. The well-known

pathologistplaced it beyond conjecture that Miss

Wren's throat had received violent pressure from

 THE STILL TONGUE 69
the hands of a man who had undoubtedly attempted
to strangle her. This pressure, considered Sir

Bernard, was sufficient in itself to have caused the

death of a woman of the age of Miss Wren. In

addition to this, as we know, the unfortunate

woman must have been very severely wounded

about the head with the tongs.

The mystery, however, in spite of these ening
enlight-
facts, seemed to deepen day by day. It was

coming to be regarded as one of the most curious

crimes of recent years. It was said that there was

far more behind it than an attack on a lonely

shopkeeper by a man who just walked into the

shop. It seemed certain, after a very close scrutiny

of the premises had been made, that it was not an

ordinary murder for robbery. That is to it

say,
was not a case of a man entering the place on

the off-chance of getting anything he might find

on the premises. He had a definite object beyond

that. He had evidently made a search of the whole

place, both upstairs and downstairs. In a room stairs

up-
the police found that two drawers were taken
from cupboard and searched, the
a contents being
strewn on the floor. This recalls the incident in
the murder of an old woman in Scotland, of which
the unfortunate Oscar Slater
man was wrongly
convicted. These two similar
cases are strangely
in their main features. In the Scotch the
case

mysterious assailant (whose identity has since

become known) had entered the flat and murdered
Miss Gilchrist. He had then searched the rooms
70 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

for something "

probably a document of some kind

"
which he badly wanted to get possession of. He

probably failed to find it, and so took away with

him a brooch belonging to his victim, with the idea

no doubt of creating the impression that the motive

of the attack was that of robbery. That is what the

police thought and that is what led them to go

after and arrest the wrong man. In the Ramsgate
case the police rightly rejected the robbery motive

and realised that something quite different had

prompted the attack. It was not done to get

possession of Miss Wren's money or portable
valuables, which might be found on the premises,
but in order to get possession of a document. fortunate
Un-

however, this did not help them much,

for they were unable to lay their hands on the

culprit. That he was known to Miss Wren seemed

obvious, but why she should have shielded her

assailant with her last breath was beyond standing.

under-

On the drawers which the police took possession

of were found some finger-prints. These were

carefullypreserved and subsequently photographed.

But here again the clue unfortunately proved to

be useless. They could not compare them with

other finger-prints. There were no other

any

prints like them in their archives, which proved

that the culprit, whoever he was, had not been

through the hands of the police. Thus prints,

finger-
invaluable clues as they are under other

circumstances, become futile in such a case as this.

72 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

elicited that many years before the murder the

two sisters had befriended a girl, who was in

unfortunate circumstances. A lifelong friend of

the two sisters stated that at the time of this incident

the Wren sisters were in the service of an officer

and that the girl they befriended was about to

become a mother. After the child was born the

girl married a man who looked after the child.

Unfortunately the man died and then the sisters

Wren agreed to look after the child. It was a girl,

and eventually grew up to be very pretty and

charming. The father of the child was a wealthy

man and knew of its adoption by the Wrens. At

length the girl married. She had several children

and then she died. The story is rather complicated

and involved, but the police, with the hope of

coming across something in it to connect up with the

murder, investigatedit as far as they were able. But

their energies were not rewarded, for they were able

un-

to discover anything definite in it to help them.

It was thought that Miss Wren must have been

worth a "good bit," and that she had been known

to refer to her solicitor and her "agent," but here

again nothing definite could be discovered.

Eventually, on October 24th, the coroner's

inquiry was concluded.

The coroner asked Chief Inspector Hambrook

the question:
"Have you been able to find any evidence to

corroborate her later statements that she came by

her injuriesas a result of a fall ?"
 THE STILL TONGUE 73

"No, sir," replied the inspector.

*'Have you," continued the coroner, "been able

to find any evidence to corroborate her later

statement that she had been attacked by the

whom she named ?"

persons
"No, sir," again replied the inspector.
It had apparently been the intention of Miss

Wren to lead the police away from the real culprit

by naming two other men as the possibleassailants,
who, however, were found to have had nothing to

do with it.

The coroner then made comments on the case

as a whole, by way of summary.

"So far as motive is concerned," he said, "the

deceased woman does not appear to have made

any allegations as to being robbed. In addition

to this there is very little discrepancy between the

amount of money found in the house and the

amount of money the woman said she had. It

would be futile to speculate as to other possible

motives. We cannot look at the evidence without

seeing that in spite of Miss Wren's physical abilitie

dis-

there is strong evidence of normal mental

alertness. It shows she was a of active and
person
acute intelligence. Her answers show that she

appreciated the position.

"Just before she died. Miss Wren had a talk
with the vicar. It reasonable to
seems suggest
that a who knew she facing death
person was

would be unlikely to go to her death with a lie on

her lips. She made a dying declaration, in the

74 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

knowledge that she was dying, and it is very-

important with reference to the interpretation to
be put on her earlier statements to remember that
'
in the face of death she said, I do not wish to make

any statement.'

"Immediately the vicar had left she said to

Mrs. Baldwin, a friend, apparently with faction,

satis-
'
I did not tell him anything, see.' Putting
these things together, I think you will come to the

conclusion she was a woman who had a secret to

keep and who kept it. She was always on her

guard when a police officer was present. If you

come to the conclusion that she knew who her

assailant was and did not intend to tell, I think

that is a conclusion which would be warranted by

an impartial of her different stages. The
survey
reason she refused to tell may be assumed to be

that she wished to shield someone. I am disposed

to attach more importance to the statement made

by the dead woman when she was unconscious

than to the statements made when she was in full

possession of her senses. In one of these conscious

un-

moments she said, 'You can't take it.

Oh, don't.'

"I want to tell you that there is no evidence on

which you could find a verdict against any of the

referred to in her statements. The fullest

persons
inquiries have been made into the circumstances,
and if any real evidence had resulted from

the inquiries it would have been brought before

you."
 THE STILL TONGUE 75

The verdict the inevitable ''open" to

was one,

the effect that the murder was

committed by "some

or
unknown".
person persons

And there the matter has remained ever

since.

As to what the secret was

which Miss Wren guarded

jealously there is not of evidence to

so a scrap

indicate. The motive was strong enough to seal

her lips in the of death. The reader

even presence

will have to find his solution in his own

own way,

for no assistance, beyond what has been related

above, can
be vouchsafed him by the writer or by

anybody who had anything to do with the gation

investi-

of the tragic occurrence.

 IV

THE BODY IN THE DITCH

{The Case of Agnes Kesson, Epsom^ June, 1930.)

{a)
Early on the morning of Thursday, June 5th,
1930, while an attendant at the Horton Mental

Asylum was making his

way along Horton Lane,

near Epsom, in Surrey, he suddenly came a

upon

body lying in the ditch by the side of the road.

The spot was situated just beneath a tall tree. It

was evidently the body of a female, being clothed

only in underwear. At first the attendant thought

she was merely asleep, but going closer he
upon
became satisfied that she was dead.

He at once raised an alarm. He went to the

gate of the asylum and informed the gate-foreman,

a Mr. Catlin. The latter then telephoned the

doctor of the institution, a female practitioner

named Coffey. Dr. Coffey soon arrived on the

scene,
examined the body and sent for the police.
The latter, realising the importance of the case,

immediately got into communication with Scotland

Yard. The case was given into the charge of the

well-known and prominent member of the C.I.D.,

Superintendent Brown, who, with several assistants,

76
 THE BODY IN THE DITCH 77

was very soon at Horton Lane, having driven

there in a fast car.

Photographs were at once taken of the body. It

was seen to be that of a young woman with blue

eyes and a mass of fair hair. She was wearing a

pale blue petticoat,bordered with lace, silk stock-

ings,

but no shoes. A black shoe which was found

lying on the edge of the ditch was at first believed

to have belonged to her, but subsequent gation

investi-

proved that this was not so. The body was

lying with the feet at the bottom of the ditch, the

head restingin a gully,the arms being raised above

the head and the mouth open. There were no

signs of a struggle having taken place at the spot.

Apparently the body had been brought and placed
there. There were marks of a motor car wheels in
the road near by, and they appeared to have been
made comparatively recently. It was thought that
she had been strangled elsewhere and then deposited
in the ditch. It was estimated that the body must

have been there between five and six hours.

Horton Lane is a pretty, sylvan, winding road,

leading from Epsom to Tolworth and Kingston.
It is narrow and not much used. Near where the

body was found was a row of small cottages. None

of the occupants of these heard anything unusual

during the night.

One of the first steps taken by the police was to

communicate with all stations in London and the

Home Counties, asking for information as to

missing girls. So far no clue as to identity could

78 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

be found. There were no laundry marks on the

clothing. In the afternoon the body was removed

by ambulance to Epsom mortuary. The description

which was circulated to all stations was as follows:
*'
Age 22 to 24, height 5 ft. 4 in. or 5 in.,complexion
fresh, hair light brown, bobbed, round face, well
built. The body was dressed only in underclothing,
consistingof blue striped cami-knickers, blue under

bodice, flesh-coloured stockings and suspenders.

No other clothing."
It was not long, however, before the body was

identified as that of a woman named Agnes

young
Kesson, aged twenty, a native of Falkirk. She had

come south three or four before. She had

years
been working as a waitress at a garage and house,
tea-

called The Nook, at Burgh Heath, and

which was kept by a Mr. F. W. Beats and his

wife. Inquiries revealed the fact that she had been

engaged to a mechanic there, named Robert

Harper. She had given notice to leave, as she

intended to go as barmaid at the King's Arms

Hotel, Carshalton, where a friend of hers, a Mrs.

Young, was cook. Beats had arranged for Harper

to drive her over and take her box, but Miss Kesson

would seem to have made other arrangements about

her luggage. On the Tuesday a Carter Paterson van

drove up to the tea-room for the of collect-

ing
purpose
Miss Kesson's box, and did in fact take it away.

This move on the part of Miss Kesson ably

consider-

surprised Mr. Beats and he remonstrated with

her about it.
8o MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

On the following day, Wednesday, which was

Derby Day, about three o'clock in the afternoon,

Deats said he saw a motor cyclistpass the cafe

with a girl riding pillion. They were travelling

very fast and simply "flashed past". The girl
looked back and he recognised his former assistant,
Agnes Kesson. He did not know the man.

Agnes Kesson had arrived at Deat's shop to take

her duties the previous Christmas. Prior to this

up
she had been a barmaid at a public-house in

Sutton, where she remained some ally,

Occasion-
years.
said Deats, she would talk about the pillion
rides she had had. She had a brother in the Army.
She had little money when she arrived at
very
The Nook. Since then, however, she had managed
to save some and had opened an account at the

Burgh Heath Post Office.

The police made extensive inquiries among

various as to the car which it was jectured
con-
garages
had brought the body to the ditch. It

had a much worn tyre. They were, however,

unable to trace it.

Naturally Agnes Kesson's father was much upset

when he heard of the tragedy. He observed : "I

have lost a bonny girl,one who never gave me a

moment's trouble, and one who worked hard from

her earliest years. I knew she had been keeping

with for some time, but I
company a young man

learned when she was home on holiday last

August, that she had broken off the engagement".

He at once set out for London.
 THE BODY IN THE DITCH 8l

Gradually various clues began to reach the

police. One of these was that supplied by a

labourer, who lived not far from where the body

was found. He said that between 12 and 2 a.m.

on Wednesday night he heard a woman scream.

He immediately jumped out of bed and looked out

of the window. He saw a motor car and near it a

man was standing. A girlwas on the path and she

was crying. The man crossed to her, apparently

said something to her, and she then got into the

car, which was driven away.

Another story came from a Purley man, who

said he saw a girl, answering the description of

Miss Kesson, with a man on Wednesday evening,

about twenty-four hours after she disappeared.
Several men were brought to the station and put
up for identification but, as often happens, under

such circumstances, the witnesses failed to identify,

and so the men were released.

Harper was much upset about the affair. He

explained that on the day Miss Kesson disappeared

he had driven Mrs. Deats to Tooting on a shopping

expedition. When he left Miss Kesson was in the

kitchen. He said good-bye to her. He returned

late in the afternoon and then found Miss Kesson
had gone. He neither knew which she went
way
or whether she had any luggage with her. He said

that they both got on well together, and

very
would probably have been married soon.

Deats advanced this theory of what had pened:

hap-
Miss Kesson had many admirers, who
82 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

used to come to the cafe and hang about. Some

had known her before. They became a bit of a

nuisance to Deats, who tried to get rid of them,

and would call Harper for the purpose. One of

these young fellows represented himself as well off,

and evidently attracted the girl by his manner.

Deats thought that she have made an ment

appoint-
may
with him, have met him and gone in his car.

He did not know who he could be. He noticed

that on the morning of her disappearance she
seemed agitated and evidently did not want Harper
to take her to Carshalton. When she left she
turned the lane, instead of, as he thought she
up
should, going down to the corner for the bus stop.
The great mystery of the tragedy, as it presented
itself to the police,was : Where was Agnes Kesson

during Tuesday night and Wednesday? Also:

What had become of her clothing ?

The inquest was opened on Tuesday, June i oth,

at the police-station,
by Mr. G. Wills Taylor, the
East Surrey Coroner. Only formal evidence,
however, was taken on that occasion, the father of
the dead girlbeing the only witness. The inquest
was then adjourned till the 25th, when it was again
adjourned till July 4th. These adjournments were

arranged in order to leave the police free to carry

on their investigations. They took many ments
state-

from various people, one of which was

 THE BODY IN THE DITCH 83

concerning the missing motor cyclist who was

supposed to have taken the deceased girl on a

pillion ride on the Wednesday. None of these

statements were, unfortunately, of much value or

assistance.

At the resumed inquest on July 4th more evidence

was taken. It was said that Miss Kesson had

promised to wait until Mrs. Deats came back. She

did not, however. Why ? She left behind her a

blue felt hat, a pair of kid gloves, a pair of brown

shoes, a pair of stockings,a vest, an attache case,

tooth paste, curling irons and some preparation

for the hair. Her trunk was not labelled.

These details were supplied by Mrs. Deats in

the witness-box. Then ensued the following logue

dia-

between the witness and the coroner:

Coroner: Did husband know where the

your
box was going to ?

Mrs. D.: Not until the evening. He saw Carter

Paterson's man coming home and asked him where

the box was.

Coroner: Why should your husband concern

himself as to where the box went to ?

Mrs. D.: It was natural. He was her employer.

Coroner : Why was your husband anxious ?

Mrs. D.: I cannot He felt he would like

say.
to know where she went. Previously she had told
him she was going to Sutton.
Coroner: Was there other reason why he
any
was concerned where the box went ?

Mrs. D. : None whatever.

84 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Coroner: Just think, Mrs. Deats ?

Mrs. D. : None whatever, unless it was in Bob's

interest.
Coroner : Why was your husband concerned on

Mr. Harper's account ?

Mrs. D. : Because he works for him and because

he is a good workman.

Coroner: Did you know your husband went to

WalHngton Pohce Station on Tuesday night ?

Mrs. D. : I did not know where he went. I only
know that he and Mr. Harper went out. I was

told they went to Carshalton.

Coroner: Did your husband say anything to

you about any money that was missing ?

Mrs. D. : He has said he was short and that he

might have mislaid it. He said it was notes.

Coroner: Your husband has told you from

time to time there has been a shortage of money.

Do you blame anybody for it ?

Mrs. D.: We could not blame anybody unless

we had proof.
Evidence was also given by Mrs. Young, who

said that Mr. and Mrs. Deats and Harper did not

like her, Mrs. Young. Agnes Kesson had told her

that she was going to the Duke's Head at Tad-

worth. She said that Kesson and Harper quarrelled

occasionally and that the girl had a violent temper.
In fact,she added, both had.

It further transpired that Deats said that he

had lost ;^7 and an account-book, and that he

was going to get a warrant to search Kesson's box.

 THE BODY IN THE DITCH 85
He did, in fact, go to the police station but could

not get a warrant. When Mrs. Young heard about

this she was very indignant, for she said she knew

that Kesson was quite straight and honest.

The inquest was resumed on the following day,

when additional facts were brought to light,
although the light they shed on the mystery was

not very brilliant. A piece of stringwas produced,

with which, it was thought, Kesson was strangled.
It was found somewhere in the neighbourhood of

the lane where the body was discovered. It also

transpired that friendship existed between Kesson

and other unknown young fellows. Deats's son

and Harper had gone out in the middle of the

night with a car. A police-constabletestified that

he saw Deats and Harper in a car about ii.io

on Wednesday night, driving towards the main

road 10 Brighton.
When Kesson disappeared. Harper wrote the

following letter to her sister in Scotland:

"
I am writing to ask if you have any information

about Agnes, as she left here yesterday to go to

her new job and I am very anxious to know where

she is.
"
Her new job is with Mrs. Young, which I very
much object to, as I think too much of Agnes to

go to Mrs. Young, and she knows it. If you don't

mind my saying so, if she is home, don't let her go
back to London where her luggage is.
*'
Please wire me if she has come home safe. Tell
her to write me as I am worried about her."
very
86 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

The inquest was again adjourned and resumed

on July gth. The interest in it became keener than

ever. The most important witness to enter the box

on this occasion was Mr. Deats. He related how,

on the night of Derby Day, that is on the day,
Wednes-

while he was clearing up, he heard a tap on

the window. He was asked by a man to go to

Sutton and pick a Mrs. Smith. He knew Mrs.

up
Smith. But he failed to find her at Sutton. He

was then hailed by two men, whom he drove to a

road in Sutton. He then returned home, where

he arrived about twenty minutes or a quarter to

two. He did not know the man who called him.

"I think there is nothing more I can assist you

with," he concluded.

"There is nothing more know ?" asked the

you
coroner.

"Nothing as far as I can tell,"replied Deats.

"Is there nothing know?" persisted
more you
the coroner.

"I don't know anything more," said Mr. Deats.

"
We will leave it at that," concluded the coroner.

"You can stand down for the time being."

The had been pressing with his
coroner very
questions. Deats was in the box for over two hours.

The coroner then addressed the jury as follows :

"There is one who has not been called.

person
You have heard Mr. Deats say about the tapping
on the window and Mrs. Smith. A statement by
a witness can be produced dealing with this matter,

but not at this point.

88 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

He declared that he had seen Miss Kesson twice

the same afternoon at the races. She was panied,

accom-

he said, by a young man, who walked in a

jaunty, swaggering manner, and was dressed in a

grey suit,and wore a cap and brown boots.

There were several other people who were

supposed to have seen Agnes Kesson, or thought

they had seen her, shortly before her body was

found. One of these was a woman named Crawford

who lived at Epsom and who said that on the

morning of Derby Day she saw a man and a girl,

whom she believed was Miss Kesson. They called

to ask for a needle and cotton to repair a hole in

the girl'sstocking. She identified the stocking at

the inquest.
Somebody else was supposed to have seen her

on Derby day, shortly after the big race, panied

accom-

by a broad-shouldered young man, about

twenty-seven and clean-shaven.

A "titled woman", living at Brighton, informed

the police that she saw two men with a car on the

night of the murder in the lane where the body

was found. She thought the men were handling
a sack, but she would not be able to identifythem.
All these clues, if such they could be called, were,
it must be admitted, of a rather vague description.
The men whom the supposed Agnes Kesson was

with might not have had anything to do with

the crime, and the woman may not have been

Agnes Kesson at all. At all events nothing came of

any of the clues, none of the men were traced, nor

 THE BODY IN THE DITCH 89

did of them come forward in response to the

any

police invitation to do so.

Sir Bernard Spilsbury was able to supply some

interestingand valuable details as to the nature of

the murder. He said that the deceased girl had

been strangled with a cord, after having been

struck over the head with some heavy, blunt

instrument. He also said that she probably had a

meal within two hours of her death. Where did

she have this ? It might have been indoors where

some-

with the man or men who afterwards

murdered her, subsequently conveying her body "

possiblyin a sack " to the lane where it was found.

Since there was no evidence of a struggle having

taken place on the spot, and no medical evidence

that she had struggled,it seems pretty certain that

the murder was not committed where the body

was found. In addition to this there was nobody
who came forward to say that they had heard

anything in the shape of a cry at that spot on

that night "

with the exception of the man who

said that he heard a scream and looked out of

his bedroom window "

already referred to. This

incident, however, may not have had anything to

do with the crime. The police, at all events, were

quite satisfied that the murder had taken place

elsewhere, and that the body had been conveyed
to the ditch where it was found.
Weeks went by and still no solution to this

bafflingmystery was forthcoming. The police were

at a "loose end". Not the least mysterious feature
go MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

of the tragedy was that of motive. What could the

motive have been ? It was true that the girl'sgold

watch, handbag and clothes were missing, but

they were scarcely of sufficient value to constitute

a motive. It was also inexplicable why she should

have been so scantilyclad. There was no evidence

of her having been outraged.

The question of motive in murder cases is always
very uncertain and intriguing. Some criminologists
have sought to provide a solution by calling the

motive the "removal" of a person. All murders,

however, can be put into that category, for all

murderers desire the "removal" of their victim.

That is obvious and apparent. But in many cases

of murder the true motive is subtle, and lies far

below the surface. An effort is sometimes made to

mask it,as it were, by creating the impression that

the murder was committed for some commonplace

reason, like that, for instance, of robbery. This is

quite a frequent form of camouflage, particularly

in cases of what are known as "brothel murders".

In the Epsom case the motive was certainly not

robbery. What was it ? If that question could be

answered the solution of the mystery would at

once be achieved. I mean as to the author of the

murder. At no time, however, was the motive

apparent.

The inquest was again resumed on August 14th

and was prolific of "dramatic incidents". The
 THE BODY IN THE DITCH QI

gentleman named Gorringe, already referred to,

went into the witness-box and told his story in

detail. He explained that he had come forward as

he saw in a newspaper that his evidence was

desired. He twice saw the couple on the Epsom

racecourse, he repeated, at first near the St.

Dunstan's marquee on the course, between 3.30

and 3.45, and subsequently, after the last race, he

got off a stile near Tattenham Corner in order to

allow them to cross. He said that he had no doubt

that the girl was Miss Kesson, who had served him

at the tea-rooms at Burgh Heath. He described

the man as wearing a grey suit,a soft collar and tie,

brown shoes and fancy socks. He had very dark

hair.

In reply to the coroner as to whether he knew

who Miss Kesson's companion was, the witness said :

"I have come to the conclusion that the same

young man I have seen lives in this district. I have

a vivid recollection I have spoken to him. Whether

he told me he lived at Sutton or Kingswood I do

not know. I am positively certain I have seen

him previous to the time I saw him here."

That was the sum and substance of his testimony.

The most important event of the day was the

recalling of Mr. F. W. Beats. He was apparently

deaf, and the coroner had to repeat his opening
question several times before the witness appeared
to hear him. Said the coroner:

*'Mr. Beats, I do not quite know whether you

fullyreahse the purpose of this inquiry. In arriving
92 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

at their verdict the jury will have to decide how

much they believe, and how much they do not

believe, you understand?"

"Yes," replied Beats.

''I am explaining this to you," continued the

"
coroner, to enable you to do full justice to self."
your-

The coroner then recalled the incident in nection

con-

with the missing account-book and the fact

that Mr. Beats went to the police-stationto get a

search-warrant.

"Suppose," said the coroner, "that a witness

comes into this court and says on oath that you

knew where that book was on the Sunday, what

would you say ?"

"That he or she is tellinga lie,"promptly replied

Beats.

The coroner then reverted to the incident of

the tap on the window and asked the witness if he

had found the Mrs. Smith he had been sent to

pick up. Beats replied,

"Mrs. Smith is Mrs. Greenhalgh. I did not

think of her in that name, and I did not think it

was her I would have to pick up."

The coroner pointed out that the witness was

now tellingthe court that there was no Mrs. Smith

but a Mrs. Greenhalgh.

"Mrs. Smith is Mrs. Greenhalgh," explained
Beats, "but I knew them as Smiths. I believe

her sister is still Miss Smith. I have often picked

Mrs. Greenhalgh's brother."
up
 THE BODY IN THE DITCH 93

"You told the jury," said the coroner, "you did

not see this person who tapped at the window ?"

I just saw his face with a cap," repUed Deats.

Have you seen him since ?" asked the coroner.

"No," repUed Deats. "It must be somebody

who knew that I let cars on hire, and somebody
who knew Mrs. Smith, of Cannon Lane. It might
have been somebody at Burgh Heath, but I am

rather at a loss about it,as I have been sent on so

many wild-goose journeys."

Then, in a somewhat insinuating voice, the

coroner put this to the witness:

"There is one little point, to do yourselfjustice,

you might explain. You said that on the same

night the telephone bell rang and somebody asked

you to pick them up at Kingswood Station, and

you said no. Can you explain how it was you

refused this offer?"

"I already had the other," replied Deats. "One

would have been five shillingsand the other two-

and-six."

The coroner then asked why he had not called

either his son or Harper, and he replied that it was

not worth calling them out for half-a-crown.

"I am quite sure realise the seriousness of
you
"
this,"said the coroner impressively. It is necessary

or desirable for you to produce the who,

person you

say, gave you that order."

"Well," replied Deats, "I took it as a wild-goose

chase. I think it was done for devilment, because

they knew I was a bit ratty that night."

94 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"Who by?" asked the coroner.

You cannot tell," vaguely replied Deats.

I am asking you to tell," pressed the coroner.

You cannot mention names," protested Deats.

"
If the person would only willingly come forward
who tapped on my window, let them. Then they
cannot say I have any spite."
"Just take up that oath card and read it,"
requested the coroner.

Deats picked up the card and commented on the

"
words : I have sworn. I have told the truth and the
"
whole truth, but on this particular occasion
The coroner interrupted him.

"Mr. Deats," he said, "you have sworn to tell

the truth and the whole truth, and now are

you
saying you are keeping something back."

Deats made no reply, but stood in the box in a

thoughtful mood. The coroner watched him closely

and then again asked him whether he did not

know who the was who tapped on his

person
window. At length said the witness:

"I say ," mentioning the name of a bour.

neigh-
"They are opposition people to me," he

added by of explanation.
way
"Then why," asked the coroner, "have you not

told us about this man, Mr. before?"

,

"Because it is public," replied Deats. "If we

are trying to catch a man we must not tell everyone

what we are after. If we do, the man will cover

track he can. I did, in fact, mention the

up every
matter to the police."
 96 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

On the Sunday Deats told her that Miss Kesson

was leaving and that he did not like it.

"Did he say if he had found the book?" asked

the coroner.

"Yes," replied the witness. "He said he had

found it that Sunday morning, burned in the grate,

but intact."

This led to a "scene". The coroner asked Deats

to come forward and stand facing Miss Woodhouse,

which Deats at once did. Then the coroner thus

addressed him:

"Miss Woodhouse has sworn that, on Sunday,

June I St, you went to her house in the afternoon,
and she asked if you had found the book. She
you
said that you said, 'Yes, burned in the grate, but

intact'."
I

"I did not say that," replied Deats, although

he admitted that he must have said "something
similar." He went on to explain: "I was paid on

the Monday morning, June 2nd, in respect of an

account in the missing book".

That concluded the evidence of Miss Woodhouse,

and her place in the witness-box was taken by
Mrs. Elsie Louise Greenhalgh, of Cannon Lane,
Burgh Heath, who said that her maiden name was

Smith. She stated that Mr. Deats asked her if she

knew a Welshman or had one lodging with her.

He then explained that someone had tapped on

his window and asked him to meet Mrs. Smith, of

Cannon Lane. He, thinking it was something to

do with her, said he went to meet a train at Sutton

 THE BODY IN THE DITCH 97

Station. She told him she was not expecting one

any-

at all. Then said Beats, "I was out late with

the car and I should like you to say you were

expecting somebody".
Mrs. Greenhalgh said that she told him that she

could not do that as she was not expecting any-^

body. She then went on to explain to Mr. Beats

that she had received a letter from one of her

brothers, and that he would have been the one

she might have been expecting. Then, she said.

Beats appealed to her to help him by saying that

she was expecting her brother. She would not

agree and Beats then went away. Subsequently,

explained Mrs. Greenhalgh, she received messages
from Beats, sent through one of her children, asking
if she had any gentlemen to see her, appealing to

her to answer
''
yes or no".

Mrs. Greenhalgh then said that she had had to

go to Mr. Beats for relief, as the relieving officer

attended at Mr. Beats's shop, and as she had

ignored the messages sent by Beats, the latter

waylaid her. He called her by name, but she took

no notice of him. She said that he even followed

her all the way to the school road, still calling her,
but that she told him she was in a hurry.
"I was so afraid of Mr. Beats' appearance," she

said, "when I turned round that the next week

I took sister with me."
my
Her evidence continued:
"
When I got into Mr. Beats' shop the following
Thursday Mrs. Beats flew at me, and asked me
gS MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

what I meant by not waiting to see what Mr. Deats

had to to me. I would not discuss anything

say
with her. When I came out she accused me of

telhng Ues. I said I had not, and did not wish to

discuss anything with her. She then said, 'I have

been good friend to and will suffer for

a you, you
this'. I walked out of the shop. The reheving
officer heard word. I was afraid of Mrs.
every
Deats' at the time. She looked to me
appearance
like a mad woman. I walked out of the shop and

sent to Scotland Yard and informed them of the

I had been treated. Since then I have been

way
nowhere near the shop."
The coroner then directed that that part of the

evidence that referred to Mr. Deats should be read

over to him, and Deats left his seat and stood by

the clerk while the evidence was read over to him.

When the clerk came to the passage: "It would

be a great help to me if you could say he was

coming", Deats shook his head and said, "That is

entirely wrong. I had no reason why I should say

that".

Mrs. Deats was then called to the witness-box

and Mrs. Greenhalgh's statement read over to

her.

"There are two lies in said

it,'* Mrs. Deats, and
then, turning to Mrs. Greenhalgh, she asked her :

"Did I say to you that Mr. Deats wants to see you

a minute ?"

"No, not to my knowledge," replied Mrs.

Greenhalgh.
 THE BODY IN THE DITCH 99

"Yes, I did," insisted Mrs. Beats. "I have had

some of you before. I have been a good friend to

you."
*'I have had enough of it," chimed in Mrs.

Greenhalgh.
At another stage in the reading over of the

evidence of Mrs. Greenhalgh, Mrs. Beats claimed

ex-

"Cut that out!"

"You accused me of tellingyou lies,"said Mrs.

Greenhalgh.
"
My sister was there to hear it."

"Then," said Mrs. Beats, "your sister is as big

a liar as you are."

At which retort there was laughter in court.

All these cordial conversational exchanges, ever,

how-

were not carrying the case forward towards a

solution of the mystery. Eventually the hearing

was again postponed until September 15th. Just
prior to this,however, an unusual incident occurred.

The proceedings had been closed, as usual, by the

coroner's officer calling upon any person who can

give information to come forward and be heard,

when the coroner directed the officer to go outside

and call the proclamation there. This was done

and when the officer returned the coroner asked

him if there had been reply, and the officer

any
said, "No reply, sir". That concluded the hearing.
This incident was supposed to have had some

connection with the coroner's announcement, made

at a previous hearing, to the effect that "someone

was keeping something back".

100 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

The final sitting of the coroner's inquest was

held on September I5th5 when a new witness was

called. This was a man named Hodson, of Water-

loo

Road, S.E., who said that on Derby Day he

met a young woman, with whom he got into

conversation. He described her as being of middle

height, about ten or eleven stone in weight and very

dark. She wore a tam-o'-shanter hat. He was

with her most of the afternoon, up till about 7.15

p.m. While walking along the London Road with

her a motor car suddenly drove and took her

up
away. When the car pulled up a man got out and

got hold of the girl,said the witness. At the same

time he said, "I have just had enough of you".

To which the girl replied,"I am fed with you".
up
Or words to that effect.

The witness was asked to describe the man, and

he said he was dark, with rather piercing eyes.

His shirt was open at the neck. It was rather

difficult to see whether he was clean-shaven or not,

said Hodson, as he was very dark and dirtylooking.
The car, he said, was of a hackney carriage type.
Someone else was driving, but he could not see

who it was. He said he had since seen the man

who jumped out of the car, while he was with

Police Sergeant Wells, outside a The

garage.
witness was then asked if he saw the man in court.

Hodson then gazed round the court and suddenly

stopping, raised his arm and pointed at Mr. Deats.

"Yes," he said, "he is there. That is the fellow."

The witness went on to explain, when requested

 THE BODY IN THE DITCH lOI

by the coroner, how he came to make this fication

identi-

outside a garage. He had communicated

with the pohce and had been taken out in a car

motor-

by detectives. On the way he described where

he and the girl had wandered over the Downs and

through various streets, the detectives making notes

all the time. When they got outside the garage "

presumably that belonging to Mr. Deats "

he saw

Deats drive up in a car and said that is the man.

The car also, he said, looked like the one that had

picked up the girl.

Hodson was then asked to explain how he came

to report the matter to the police,and he supplied

the following particulars. He said that he heard

them talking about it in Romford, and it all came

back to him when he heard the name Deats. The

girl he had been with was Scotch and spoke with

a strong accent. She told him that she was working
for a man named "Dates". This, it then occurred

to him, might have been her way of pronouncing

the name "Deats".

The coroner further pressed the witness for

additional details as to the girl'sdress, and Hodson

said she had a coat over her arm and a blue jumper
with a pleated skirt to match. She was very dark

and had good teeth. The witness added that the

car that took the girl went on to London.

away
He confessed that he did not even then know

whether it was the girl or not.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Thesiger,

and explained in reply to questions that he went
102 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

to the races on Thursday and Friday and slept at

Epsom Station on the Thursday night. He stayed
the week-end in London. It was when he was in

the market-place at Romford that he first began

to connect the incident of the girlhe met with the

Epsom case. It was when he saw a newspaper

placard with the words, "Deats questioned in the

witness-box" on it. He first met the woman

against Tattenham Corner. She spoke first. She

"
said It's a bonnie afternoon," or something of the

kind.

Dectective Sergeant Wells was the next witness.

He described the incidents of the drive with Hodson

as a passenger. When outside the garage Hodson

saw a man standing by a motor-bicycle, and said

that he looked like the man who caught hold of

the car. It was then that a Daimler car drove up

and Hodson said that the driver looked like the

man who caught hold of the girl. He also said

that the car looked like the same one. He, Wells,
duly reported the details.

Apparently not much importance was attached

to the evidence of Hodson, as it disagreed with

other facts which were known to be correct. For

instance, P.C. James Rose described Miss Kesson

as "on the fair side". He also said she had no

blue jumper with pleated skirt to match. There

were also other details in Hodson's evidence which

did not tally.

At this stage the coroner said to Superintendent
Brown, "Do feel that further information
you any
104 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

absence, of motive. The salient facts are: She

was young and good-looking. Ahhough there

were some articles belonging to her missing, it was

clearly not a case of robbery. She had received a

telephonic message shortly before she left the cafe.

She clearly intended to go to a new berth. As she

had had a meal two hours before her murder, the

latter must have been committed indoors where

some-

and the body removed to where it was found.

There is a striking similarity between this case

and that of the murder of a girl in Richmond

Park a short time ago. In the latter case the man

was caught and hanged. But precisely the same

features will be found in both cases. It seems pretty

obvious that the reason that Miss Kesson did not

arrive at Carshalton was because she met body

some-

with whom she spent a good deal of time "

a meeting that culminated in her murder. Although

medical evidence proved that no attempt had been

made to outrage her, this does not wholly exclude

the hypothesis that her murderer had designs in

that direction. In the Richmond Park case we

know that the motive was rape, although the

assailant did not achieve his object, nor attempt

to do so. The girl put up an energetic fight and
murder resulted. We also know that Miss Kesson

was a hefty Scotch girl and had a violent temper.

She also, we may be sure, would put up a good
fight, which would have a similar result as that

in the Richmond Park case. That it was not

premeditated seems clearly indicated by the nature

 THE BODY IN THE DITCH IO5

of the "weapon" a piece of string, hastily snatched

"

The blow preceding the strangling also

up.

the culmination of murderous and frantic

suggests a

struggle. The articles which were missing might

well have been taken with a

view to creating
very-

the impression that it was a

murder for robbery,

and lead the police from the true motive.

so away

As to the identity of the culprit, there is ably

lament-

little evidence to direct The police did

one.

their best, receiving and considering something like

statements. If they really did know in their

400

minds to who the culprit was

which
own as "

sometimes happens in such I have had

cases, as

occasion to point out before "

then they manifestly

were
unable to proceed on
that intelligence on

account of those vexatious limitations of the laws

of evidence which occasionally hamper them so

"
seriously. But there is "statute of limitations
as no

in regard to the functioning of the criminal law,

have solution vouchsafed in this

we may yet a case

of most mysterious murder.

 V

THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-GAR

( The Case of Evelyn Foster, Otterburn, January y

1931-)

"
I HAVE been murdered. I have been murdered."

Those were the last words uttered by Evelyn

Foster, the twenty-seven-year-old daughter of a

garage proprietor at Otterburn, Northumberland.

Shortly after she died.

During intermittent periods of consciousness she

had told a strange story. She was a practised

motorist and often drove cars about for her father.

The previous day she had driven three passengers

to Rochester, neighbouring village. On her

a way

back, she stated, she was accosted by a stranger,

who spoke to her at Elishaw, a village two miles

from Otterburn. He said he wanted to to

go
Ponteland in order to catch a bus to Newcastle.

He arranged to meet Miss Foster at a hotel in the

village, and he would then tell her if he wanted

her again. Miss Foster said that she called at the

hotel, but found that the man had not been there.

However, she picked him a few minutes later

up

on the bridge, just below the hotel, about 7.30 p.m.

He then told her to drive him to Newcastle, and

106
 THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-CAR IO7

she took him as far as Belsay. He then stopped her

again and told her to drive back. When she asked

him why he wanted to go back, he struck her in

the and tried to get hold of the wheel of the

eye
car. There was a struggle between the two and

the man eventually succeeded in getting control

of the car, which he drove away with Miss Foster

inside.

The car was driven along the road to Otterburn

until it had arrived at a lonely spot known as

Wolf's Neck, where the car was turned off the road
and run down a three-foot bank on to the moor

for about seventy yards. During this period Miss

Foster said she must have been unconscious, for

she was suddenly brought to her senses by the

jerking or jolting of the car as it passed over the

uneven ground. The man, she explained, then got

out, took something out of his pocket, and applied
a light to it. There followed a blaze and a muffled

explosion. Miss Foster felt as though she was being

suffocated and struggled to get to the door of the

car. She at length managed to open it and crawl

out of the car. She then remembered seeing a

man going back to the road. She shortly

after heard another car coming along the road,
which was followed by whispering. She then

saw the man get into the car, which was driven

away.
It was then about 8.30 in the evening. About

an hour later one of Mr. Foster's buses was returning

along the road from Newcastle, being driven by a
I08 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Mr. Johnson. The latter saw a motor-car ing

smoulder-

on the moors and pulled up. He and the

conductor then went to investigate. They were

astonished to find that it was a car belonging to

their own firm. Then they heard moans and found

Miss Foster lying on the ground. They at once

took her home, where she died a few hours after,

as already described.

It was said that both Miss Foster's eyes were

black and blue from the blows she had received,

and nearly all the skin was burned from her body.
It was a wonder she had lived as long as she did.
The police were notified and took steps at once to

trace the assailant. They circulated to all the

surrounding stations the description of the man

as supplied by Miss Foster while she was in extremis.

He was described as a man with a Tyneside accent,
about 5 ft. 6 in. high and aged about twenty-five
or twenty-six,clean-shaven, wearing a dark tweed

suit, a bowler hat and an overcoat. She also said

that he had a plausibletongue and seemed to be a

man of some education. He told her that he had

a car of his own, and all the time he was in the car

he was smoking cigarettes.

No trace whatever could be found of this man.

It was thought he must have had a good knowledge

of the localityto be able to so effectuallydisappear
without leaving a trace behind him. The last bus

to Newcastle left Otterburn at 7.30, so that the man

must have been picked up by a passing motor-car.

Another detail supplied by Miss Foster was the fact

 THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-CAR IO9

that the man had told her that he had been picked
up by a party of motorists at Jedburgh. They were

their to Hexham. He had had tea with

on way
them at Jedburgh. They were said to have been

in a dark saloon car. The police tried to get in

touch with them so that they might get a fuller

description of the assailant, but failed to do so.

They could not be traced any more than the man

could.

The murder appeared to be motiveless. It was

not robbery, for Miss Foster's bag, containing about

30J., was found near the car, the contents being

untouched. There was no trace of an outrage
having been attempted, nor did Miss Foster say

that such had been made. While

any attempt
driving back from Belsay, she said, the man had

offered her a cigarette,and when she refused he

remarked, "I see you are one of those independent

sort".

The ordeal through which Miss Foster had

passed was a severe one. All her clothes had

very
been burned off and she was exposed to the effects

of a keen frost. She was rolUng about in agony,

for water.
moaning and sucking the grass, and asking
The burned car was removed from the scene

and taken back to the at Otterburn, where

garage
it was carefully examined by the police. In the

back of the car was a burned-out petrol tin. It

was the custom to always keep a full two-gallon tin

in the car for emergencies.

Miss Foster was a good-looking young woman,
no MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

had driven cars for her father for years, and was

popular in the district,where, of course, she

very
was well known.

The driver of the bus, Mr. Johnson, later added

fresh details.

He said that it was by the merest chance that

he saw the blazing car. The flames had nearly all

died down and only the back wheel was still

burning. At first he thought there was nobody in

the car, that it was, in fact, abandoned. But upon

looking closer he observed the girl on the ground.
She was lying face downwards about nine or ten

yards from the car. She was bare from the waist

downwards. She seemed to be licking the ice on

the ground. He wrapped her in his overcoat and

took her home. On the way she kept muttering,

"Oh, that awful man. He has gone in a car''.
motor-

Over and over again she kept exclaiming,

"Oh, that awful man".

The police took the unusual step of having a

message broadcasted by the B.B.C. containing a

description of the motor-car party who were

supposed to have picked up the assailant. It ran

as follows:
"The police are anxious to trace a four-seater

closed, dark-coloured car, index mark TN, with

a number consisting of four figures, the last figure

or figure but one being a two. The car was described

as possibly an Essex, and had left the Reesdale

Hotel, near Otterburn, Northumberland, about

7 p.m., with three men of the following description:

112 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

from Newcastle to Otterburn. It was then, he

said, re-started and driven over the six-foot ment

embank-

of rough stones, in gear, locked to the right.

There must have been somebody at the wheel, as

the car was righted after it had crossed a ditch

about thirty yards from where it went over. It

seemed evident that the car must have been fired

after it had stopped, as there was no trace of

burning in its wake. Had, on the other hand, the

car been burning it must have charred the bracken

and grass over which it passed. A close examination

of the car proved that there was no reason why it

should have taken fire itself. Therefore it must

have been deliberatelyfired by an outside agency.

There was no evidence of a struggle in the car

having caused it to go over the side, nor sign

any
of a skid on the road. Another interesting fact
was that the spot where the car left the road was

the only place where the car could be driven off

the road. The plug of the petrol tank had been
removed. It might have been jerked out or it

might have been removed by the murderer in

order to get more petrol with which to fire the car.

Professor Stuart MacDonald, the well-known

pathologist,of the College of Medicine, Newcastle,

was called in to consult with Dr. McEachran, of

Bellingham, who made the post-mortem ation.

examin-

Mr. P. M. Dodds, the coroner, opened the

inquest on the afternoon of Thursday, January 8th,

at the Otterburn Memorial Hall. Prior to that

Mr. Dodds, accompanied by Police Inspector

 THE BURNED- OUT MOTOR-GAR II3

Russell and other officers,visited the spot on the

moor where the car was found and made an

examination of the patch of burned heather. They

were closely watched by a large crowd of sightseers,
\vl^ch had gathered from all parts, and the scene

generally reminded one of a "reconstruction" of a

crime in France.

Only a short time before the deceased girl.Miss

Foster, had attended a Boxing Night dance at the

Memorial Hall where the inquest on her body was

held. In fact, the festive decorations had not yet

been removed, and just above the coroner's table

hung a withered bunch of mistletoe.

At the outset the coroner pointed out that the

case presented many difficulties and that a great

deal of investigationhad yet to be done. He also

intimated that a considerable time must elapse

before the inquest could be resumed, but that

would depend largely on what transpired during

the next few days. The only witness was the father

of the dead girl, Mr. J. J. Foster, a short, well-

built, sturdy-looking man, with grey hair. He

gave formal evidence of identification,when the

inquest was provisionallyadjourned until February

2nd.

In the meantime nothing of much importance

had transpired,certainlynothing enlightening,
very
and on February 2nd the inquest was duly resumed.
The coroner said in opening that he was prepared
to sit on the following day as well and then make
another short adjournment. By this time the
114 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

interest in the case had become greatly intensified

and many people, some of whom had travelled

many miles through the wintry weather to be

present, crowded round the hall with the hope of

getting inside. Among the jury was the vicar of

Otterburn, who had officiated at the funeral of the

victim, the local postmaster and other local men,

trades-

all of whom had known Miss Foster well.

The police, of course, were in full attendance,

bringing with them many "exhibits" and able
innumer-

documents.

The first witness was the mother of the dead

girl, Mrs. Margaret Foster. She gave a detailed

account of the movements and statements of her

daughter prior to and subsequent to the tragedy.

She said that her daughter left home at 6.35 p.m.
in order to take some passengers who had arrived

at Otterburn by omnibus on to Rochester. She

returned from Rochester about 7 o'clock and said

that a man she had brought from Elishaw wanted

to go on to Ponteland in order to catch a bus.

At this stage the coroner made a statement to

the jury. He warned them that the evidence about

to be given by the witness constituted a statement

made by her daughter while she lay in a dying

condition. He pointed out that they must not

take it as evidence of fact, but merely as a line of

inquiry, so that it might be compared with other

evidence which would be given, so as to determine

whether it was true or not.

Mrs. Foster then went on to relate the details

 THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-GAR II5

of the Story as given to her by her daughter, much

of which has already been presented to the reader.

The man, said her daughter, aUghted from a car

at Ehshaw, and said he had missed the Scottish

bus at Jedburgh. He wanted a Uft to Ponteland.

She said the man looked respectable and a man

gentle-
and "a bit of a knut". He asked her what

the charge would be and she told him ^'z. She

then brought him to Otterburn, afterwards making

her to the garage for petrol. Her intention
way

was to pick him up again at the Percy Arms, in the

village. Her sister, Dorothy, suggested that she

should take with her a man named George

young
Philipson, with whom she was then keeping
With this Mrs. Foster agreed, said she
company.
thought it was a good idea, and that she might pick
him in the village. To this the girlagreed and
up
then drove away.
Mrs. Foster saw no more of her daughter until

she was brought home in a dying condition a few

hours after. When she asked her daughter what

had happened the girlreplied, "It was that man;

he hit me and burned me". Her mother then

asked her why she did not take young Philipson

with her, and she replied that she did not see him

as she passed through the village. A doctor, a

nurse and the police were summoned. The girl

then told her story of what had happened. She

said they went through Belsay, passing two cars

which she thought she knew. At Belsay her

passenger said there was no bus there, but Miss

Il6 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Foster told him that there might be one further on.

Later the man said he would go back, and Miss

Foster asked him why, as they had gone so far.

The man replied, "That has got nothing to do

with you ".

Miss Foster said she then turned the car round

and felt the man "creeping along the seat". He

took hold of the steering wheel and said he would

drive back. He also struck her in the eye with his

hand. Her eye was sore, she could scarcely see,

and it felt as though there was "sand in it". The

man was then sittingnext to her, holding the wheel.

They stopped at the top of the hill by Wolf's Jaw.

It was then he asked her to have a cigarette and
on her refusing,made the remark, "Well, you are

an independent young woman".

The man then, said Miss Foster, started knocking

her about, and pushed her into the back of the car.

She said she fought for her life. The man then

took something from his pocket and threw it over

her. It was a "bottle or a tin" and she then "just

went in a blaze". All she felt afterwards for
up
some time was a bump, as though the car was going
over rough ground. She said she was all ablaze,

did not know how she got out of the car, and was

sucking the she was so thirsty. She said she

grass,
next thought she heard a whistle, and a "squeaking
or scrunching" sound, and thought it was a car.
motor-

But she did not know which way it went.

Mrs. Foster questioned her daughter about this

and Miss Foster said that the man said he

man,
 THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-GAR II7

did not know much about Newcastle and that he

Hved down in the Midlands. She also asked hei

daughter about the car from which the man

alighted at Elishaw, and she said that there was a

woman in the driver's seat and two men at the back.

The coroner asked Mrs. Foster what was the

mental condition of her daughter when she made

this statement, and Mrs. Foster replied, "Perfectly

lucid and sane".

"Do think that at any time she thought she

you

was going to die ?" asked the coroner.

"I don't know," replied Mrs. Foster. "She did

say to the nurse that she thought that she would

'
not get over it. To me she said : Mother, my eyes

are swollen up. I can't see. I wonder if I shall

see again'."
"Had you any cause for anxiety that night?"
asked the coroner.

"No," replied Mrs. Foster. "She was used to

driving, but generally someone went with her at

night."
"It was really an exceptional thing on this

particular night that she was alone?" observed

the coroner, and Mrs. Foster agreed that it was.

Here the examination of the witness was taken

up by Mr. Smirk, a solicitor representing the

police. He asked Mrs. Foster about the description

of the man as given by her daughter. Mrs. Foster

replied that the only description given by her was

that he was dark, clean-shaven and wore a dark

overcoat and a bowler hat. Mr. Smirk then

 Il8 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

pointed out to the witness that she had from time

to time made several statements to the poUce, but

that until to-day she had never used the phrase,

"looked like a bit of a knut". Mrs. Foster agreed
that that was so. The coroner then eased matters

by remarking that Mrs. Foster had said before

that the man was well dressed, which was probably

what her daughter meant.

The inquest was adjourned, and resumed the

following day. A roadman named Kennedy, of

Knowlesgate, a village on the main road between

Otterburn and Belsay, gave evidence. He said he

was on the main road at Kirkwhelpington on the

evening of January 6th, walking north towards

Knowlesgate. Shortly after 8 o'clock a dark

saloon car, travelling very fast, overtook him. A

man was driving it and he saw part of his face

through the glass as the car flashed past. He saw

nobody else in the car. He visited the scene of

the tragedy the day after it occurred. He was

cross-examined by Mr. T. H. Smith, representing

the police, who suggested to the witness that he

had never said anything to the police about the

car in question until he had been approached by

the police ten days afterwards. The witness replied
that he had mentioned it to a police-constable,
but could not be definite about it.

The next witness was a motor salesman of

Hawick, named Beatty, who on January 6th drove

a car from Darlington to Hawick, passing through

Durham, Ponteland and Belsay. He reached
120 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

of Durham University, and by Dr. McEachran,

of Bellingham, who was called in to Miss Foster

when she was brought home injured. Another

doctor, a Dr. Miller, was also in attendance. Dr.

McEachran said that Miss Foster was suffering

from shock and burns, and that there was little

chance of her recovery. He was present, he explained

while Miss Foster was being questioned, and he

agreed with Mrs. Foster that the girl was at the

time quite lucid and sane.

Then came Professor McDonald, who, on January

8th, with the assistance of Dr. McEachran, held

the examination. He read out from

post-mortem
his notes the following details:

"The features were obscured by burns, but there

appeared to be discoloration about the root of the

nose. Extensive burns were distributed about

various parts of the body. No external marks

suggesting injury apart from the burns were found

other part of the body. An internal tion

examina-
on any
showed no injuries except severe burning.
From these we are of opinion that
appearances
the cause of death was shock, the result of severe

external burning. The distribution of the burns

and their severity suggest that certain portions of

the clothing had contained some inflammable

substance. The distribution of the burned areas

suggests that Miss Foster was sitting during some

period of the burning. The situation of other

burns indicates that there had been splashes of

an inflammable liquid."
 THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-CAR 121

Professor MacDonald said there was no evidence

of outrage. He had examined a bunch of heather,

two bunches of grass, a door handle of the car

and a portion of the mudguard for bloodstains,

but the results were negative. There was absolutely
no trace or evidence of bruising of the face. There

were no signs of Miss Foster's arms having been

nipped, as she had said they had been. Supposing

that she had been lying in the back of the car, on

the seat, with her head leaning forward, he could

quite understand the injurieshe found.

The coroner then put this question:

"Assuming the car was where you saw it, and
she threw some petrol into the back of the car and

set fire to it, with her left leg probably on the

running board and her right on the edge of the

step, could the flames have come back and blinded

her?"

"I think it quite possible," replied Professor

MacDonald. "I cannot quite understand, if that

were the explanation, why there should have been

such localisation of burns," he added.

In reply to Mr. Smirk, he said that he found

no evidence of the girl having been struck. The

burns might have been caused in various ways.

Professor MacDonald was then questioned by
Mr. E. Bates, who represented the Foster family.
He said that if petrol were poured over it
anyone
would probably soak through to the back of the

clothes, which might possibly account for the burns

at the girl'sback.
122 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"In her statement to her mother," said Mr.

"
Bates, Miss Foster said she was struck in the eye
and that it felt as if some sand had been thrown

in. Is that compatible with her having had a light

"
blow in the eye ? It would leave no trace ?

"No trace," agreed the Professor.

The Rev. J. Brierly,the vicar of Otterburn and a

member of the jury, then asked this question:

"In your examination of the face you say there

was a bluish discoloration. Does that suggest a

bruising of the face?"

"Yes," replied Professor MacDonald. "In a

microscopical examination I found signs compatible

with burning. There was really no evidence of

bruising by a blow."

The next witness was Mr. W. Jennings, motor

engineer, of Morpeth. He had examined the wheel

tracks on the moor and from them inferred that

the speed of the car, when it left the road, could

not have been more than ten miles an hour. Which

of course would be very slow for a car. He went

on to explain that the erratic nature of the wheel

marks indicated that the car had been out of

control, but that later on it had become under

control again. He considered that the fire had

been caused by some outside agency after the car

had stopped. The fire had begun at the rear of

the body of the car and swept forward in an

upward direction.

The coroner then quoted from Miss Foster's

statement, where she said that the man crept

 THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-CAR I23

along the seat and took hold of the wheel, and

asked Mr. Jennings: "Could a car be driven that

way?'* to which Mr. Jennings replied:

"It would be a difficult thing to do
very
if she acquiesced, or permitted him to drive

without resisting, and almost impossible if she

resisted."

That concluded the evidence. The coroner then

summed up, his speech to the jury occupying thing

some-

like an hour. I quote some of the most

pregnant passages from it. After warning the jury

to dismiss from their minds any rumours they might
have heard, he said:

"Crimes are committed in very many ways,

sometimes for obvious reasons, sometimes for

reasons unknown, and in this case we are dealing

with a question as to whether somebody, a stranger,
is implicated or whether the girlherself has done it.

I think you will be quite safe in eliminating any

idea of suicide. There is no evidence of it."

He then pointed out that the two main points

were :

"Was the girl murdered or did she set fire to

the car and in doing so obtain the burns ally

accident-

? If it was a case of murder, then the man

must have been a homicidal maniac.

"If the girl has done it herself you must sider

con-

what her object might have been. Was her

object to obtain money through the insurance on

the car?"

The coroner proceeded:

 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS
124

"There were two policies,one for ^{^4505covering

the car in a only, and another one covering
garage
cars to horse-power in the sum of ^^yoo.
up 30
"
On the other hand, there are cases of persons

obsessed with the idea of notoriety. That might

be a factor in this case."

The coroner went on to point out to the jury

that witnesses had said that they did not see a man

in the car, or get out of the car, when it arrived at

the Foster garage. It was an astonishing thing,

he said, that in a short area of about 40 yards, if

her story were true, nobody had seen the stranger.

Then again. Miss Foster had said that the car was

on fire in the road. If this were so it would have

been impossible to have driven it across the moor.

Such an idea would be nonsense. It also seemed

apparent that the cap of the petrol tank had been

removed before the fire occurred.

"If the girl did it,how was it done ?" asked the

coroner. "It has been suggested that she may

have been standing with one of her feet on the

step and the other on the running-board, pouring

petrol on the cushions, and that when she lighted
it the flames came back and caught her. Is not the

positionof the burns most consistent with a theory

of this description? There is no direct evidence

that the burns were caused by another person."

The jury then retired and were away over two

hours. They returned with a verdict that Miss

Foster had been murdered "by some person or

persons unknown".
 THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-CAR 1 25

The coroner then asked them if that meant that

they found that some individual had wilfully

poured petrol over Miss Foster and set her on fire,
and they said that it did.

The verdict was received by the villagerswith

loudly expressed approval. The verdict, however,
did not satisfythe girFs father, Mr. J. J. Foster,
who took exception to some of the observations
made by the coroner in his summing-up. So he

wrote a letter to the Home Secretary about it. In

this he complained that many painful and ous

scandal-

innuendoes were made against his daughter at

the inquest. He had said that his daughter had

been accused of herself setting fire to the car to

obtain insurance money, pointing out that ance

insur-

companies settle a claim on the market

value of a car and not on the sum for which it

is insured.

"There was not a tittle of evidence," he tested,

pro-
"to support these shameful theories, but I

recognise that they were, perhaps, inevitable,

distressingthough they were to my family. The

jury's verdict vindicated my girl'sintegrity and

good faith."

The letter then went on to point out that in an

interview with the Chief

a newspaper reporter,
Constable of Northumberland had stated that the
verdict was against the weight of evidence. He

protested against the police defending themselves

in a case of failure by attacking his dead daughter.
The letter concluded:
126 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"This is a matter to which I earnestlyhope and

pray you will devote your attention, in conjunction

with the following questions:
"i. Was my daughter's burned car left protected
un-

for hours so that finger-printscould not

be taken ?

"2. Is it also a fact that the police made no

attempt to check footprints on the scene of the

tragedy until the ground had been trampled over

by curious sightseers?
"3. Why were the skill and experience of

Scotland Yard ignored by the Northumberland

police ?
"We have suffered a great bereavement and

terrible shock that will remain with us to the end

of our days. All I can do now is to defend my

daughter's honour along lines which may protect
other parents from the painful procedure to which
Mrs. Foster and myself have been subjected."
The Home Secretary, Mr. J. R. Clynes, acknowl-
edged

receipt of the letter and said he would reply

to it in due course.

It transpired that Miss Foster left estate valued

at p(^i,400.
No doubt the Home Secretary made full inquiries
into the matter, as is usual under such stances.
circum-

No further steps, however, would appear

to have been taken, and there the mystery remains

to-day.
As to what really occurred on that tragic night
the reader must form his own judgment, basing
 VI

THE LATE CALLER

{The Case of Edward Creed, Bayswater, July, 1926.)

In the 1926 Edward Creed was manager

year
of the old-established cheesemonger's shop ing
belong-

to Messrs. Philip Lowry " Co., and situated

at Leinster Terrace, off the Bayswater Road,

Lancaster Gate. He forty-six of age,
was years

was a member of the Special Constabulary and

had been in his berth He lived with

many years.

his wife and daughters in Denbigh Terrace, Notting

Hill.

On the evening of July 28th an assistant, named

Alfred Leonard, left the shop about ten minutes

Prior to this Leonard had, the

past seven. as was

custom at the shop, deposited a basin of hot water

in the cellar for Creed to wash in. He also lit the

in the cellar. Then went upstairs again, said

gas
"Good night" to Creed and left. When he got
outside and the door was closed, he heard Creed

place the safety catch on the door from the inside.

He saw no suspicious characters hanging about

outside.

By that time Creed had made his accounts

up
and locked the in the safe, which was in the
money

128
 THE LATE CALLER I29

office, leaving only a few coppers in the register

till.

Three hours later a Mr. Andrews, a chemist

next door, noticed a strong smell of gas emanating

from the cheesemonger's shop. He tried the door

but found it locked. He became alarmed and

called a constable. Between them they forced an

entry. They found the shop in great disorder.

A box-bicycle, used for delivering goods, had

bloodstains on it. There were splashes of blood on

the walls, a pool of blood by the door which led

to the cellar stairs. Half way down the latter they

discovered the body of Mr. Creed, in a huddled-up
position,as though it had been thrown down the

stairs by somebody. A very strong smell of gas

was proceeding from the cellar. Upon further

investigationihey found that three gas jets were

fullyturned on but unlighted.

Thus was brought to light one of those grim and

stealthy tragedies which go to swell the already

long list of London's unsolved mysteries. Scotland

Yard were promptly notified, and Chief Constable

Wensley, accompanied by Superintendents NichoUs

and Ashley, were soon on the spot and bringing

their combined skill and experience to bear upon
the problem.
They discovered two left-hand, bloodstained
gloves on the floor,one rather larger than the other.

The safe had been rifled, the door having been

opened by a key taken from the pocket of the dead

man. The latter had been killed by repeated and

130 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

heavy blows over the head with a formidable

weapon. It was thought a "jemmy". The police

"reconstructed" the crime as follows: Creed had

gone downstairs to wash when he heard somebody

knocking on the front door. This would not alarm

him, as it was quite customary for late callers to be

served after closing time. He then went upstairs

and opened the door. Immediately the assailant

or assailants (it was believed that there were

two) entered the shop, closing the door behind

them and at once launched a savage attack

Creed.
upon
At this stage it will be interestingto point out

the striking resemblance between this murder and

that at Deptford, committed by the brothers

Stratton. In both cases we have a shop with a

locked door, the knock on the door, the custom

for serving callers at unseasonable hours, the sudden

attack, the ruthless murder, the robbery and the

retreat of the culprits. They are what one may

term "groove" murders, that is to say, murders

where the methods adopted are invariably to be

found moving in the same groove or channel.

There may be plagiarism about it, as criminals

undoubtedly copy and endeavour to improve upon

one another's methods. The police were luckier

in the Deptford case than they were in that at

Bayswater.
Creed was a well-built and courageous man,
and there existed evidence that he put a severe
up
struggle. He was, however, evidently overcome by
 THE LATE CALLER I3I

superior numbers and from the fact that he was

taken unawares. Having been beaten to death, or

at all events into unconsciousness, he was thrown

downstairs. The safe was then opened and rifled,

between and ;^8o (itwas afterwards ascertained)
-"^0
being taken. The assassins then went below and

turned on the gas with the idea, one would suppose,

of creating a fire somehow, so that all traces of the

crime might be destroyed. They then quietly left

the premises, fastening the door behind them.

Apparently nobody saw them go, and thus they

were able to make a clean get-away.
Although the culprits do not appear to have

been seen near the place after the tragedy had

been enacted, there were persons who were in a

position to say that they probably saw them shortly

prior to the tragedy. These persons were viewed
inter-

by the police. Among them was a police

pensioner, named William Tucker, who lived near.

He said he saw two men loitering about the shop

about seven o'clock. They occasionally looked into

the shop. He watched them, as their behaviour

was suspiciousand Mr. Tucker was an ex-policeman.

A policeman was on "point" duty, quite near.

The men caught sight of him and soon after appeared.

dis-

But they returned shortly after. One

then stood near the corner of the street, the other

on the opposite side of the The latter carried

way.
a basket of flowers, which gave him the appearance
of a flower-seller. That was the last that Mr. Tucker

saw of the men.

132 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

The police issued the following descriptions of

two "wanted" men:

"
(i) About 32, height 5 ft. 11 in. to 6 ft. Dressed

in rough fashion.
"
(2) Height 5 ft. 6 in. to 5 ft. 7 in. One leg
shorter than other, causing him to walk with a

pronounced limp. Of rough appearance."

It must be admitted that these descriptionsseem

rather vague, but they were the best the police
could issue with the material at their disposal.
As usual under such circumstances statements

were taken from various people. For instance, two

women said they saw two rough men hanging about

the shop a few nights before the murder, but they

were unable to describe them very well. In fact

no two descriptions tallied, except that one was

taller than the other, and that one limped.

Another story, which came from a young woman,
seemed to have something in it. She said she saw

two men standing on the flat roof of the shop

shortly before the murder. She had communicated

this information about the time the murder was

discovered and had then disappeared and could

not be found. The police communicated with

various coast towns " such, for instance, as bourne,

East-

Worthing and other places around that

part of the coast "

asking the local police to keep
a watch for the arrival of any suspicious-looking
newcomers.
 THE LATE CALLER 1 33

There were finger smudges and faint prints

finger-
found in the shop, and these were graphed,
photo-
but they proved to be of Uttle

assistance.

News reached Scotland Yard from Birmingham

to the effect that two men had visited the pubHc
baths and changed their clothes, leaving their old

ones behind. The clothes they left behind consisted

of a grey swallow-tailed coat, grey trousers with

black stripe,waistcoat and bluejacket. There were

stains on the clothes, probably of paint. The stains,

however, might be bloodstains, and they were to

be subjected to tests. Pieces were taken out for

this purpose. The men left the baths dressed as

follows: I. New blue tweed suit, black boots,

much worn, soft collar and tie, hard bowler hat.

2. New light grey suit, with stripes in the cloth,

black boots, much worn, dark trilby hat, collar
and tie.

Upon the strength of this and other information,

the police issued the following amended and

ampUfied descriptionsof the two "wanted" men:

**
(i). Aged 27 or 28, height 5ft. Sin. or 5ft.
9 in.,thinlybuilt,dark features,short-clippedblack
moustache, sunken eyes, short-cropped hair at

back, dark and well brushed back: walks with a

jerk in his right leg.

''
(2). Aged between 45 and 50, height between

5 ft. 5 in. and 5 ft. 6 in., medium build, sallow

complexion, sandy moustache, round shouldered."

134 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Scotland Yard were inundated with reports about

the two "wanted" men having been seen, coming
from all parts of the country. The task of attending
to all these was a heavy one, and unfortunately led

to no practical result. The descriptions were

rather vague, and the only resemblance between

the men who were seen and those who were

"wanted" was apparently the limp. As a matter

of fact it was rather a "jerk" than a limp.

The inquest was opened at Paddington on

August 13th, by Mr. H. R. Oswald. It was a short

hearing, only evidence of identification being taken.

The coroner apologized to the jury for having to

adjourn so soon, but he did so at the request of the

police. He also mentioned that he had received

some anonymous letters about the case. He

explained that he did not want to give the case

to any possible criminal by any revelation

away
in his court. He could have called Dr. Bronte and

other important witnesses, but it would be pedient

inex-

to do so on that day.
An anonymous letter had also been received by
the police, to which they evidently attached siderable
con-

importance. They appealed to the writer

of it to come forward, but there was no response.

The coroner also appealed. He said: "I should

like to point out to the individual concerned, ever

who-

it may be, that he or she owes a public duty

to the country and to justice in this case "
a very
brutal and cowardly murder " to come forward and

state definitelywhat he or she knows. It is very

136 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

and the second addressed to Chief Con. Wensley

and marked 'Personal'.

*'It is again requested that the writer of them

communicate with the Chief Constable, making an

appointment. Should the writer fail to come ward

for-

by midday on Saturday, August 14th, the

police authorities will reluctantly be compelled to

publish a specimen of the handwriting."

The letters were evidently written in a disguised
handwriting. The threat to publish a specimen
of the handwriting was evidently made with a view

to frightening the author into coming forward. If

so, it failed, as nobody responded. Nor, so far as

can be ascertained, was a specimen of the writing

hand-

published. Probably there had been no real

intention of doing so.

However, on August 23rd, another anonymous

letter was received by the police,obviously written

by the same person and again in disguised hand-

writing.

From the style and diction and general

phraseology of the documents it seemed probable
that the writer was a person of some education,
who still obstinatelyrefused to come forward. The

police had interviewed over 100 persons on the

case, although not the individual they particularly

wanted to interview.

The police believed that the murderer or

murderers, were acquainted with Creed. All the

previous assistants were found and questioned,

their replies being satisfactory,and proving that

they were in no connected with or knew

way
 THE LATE CALLER I37

anything about the tragedy. There were two

ticket-of-leave men who had not "reported", but

these also proved to be outside the case.

The inquest was resumed on September ist, at

which the coroner made the following additional

statement :

"Unfortunately no has been arrested who

person
could be said to be suspected of this foul act, and
so far as I can see there is no prospect that an arrest

is near. It will be wasting your time and the time

of the witnesses to keep on adjourning the case. A

verdict that the murder was committed by some

person unknown will not prevent the police

prosecuting any person who may be arrested later.

If a person is discovered twenty-five years hence to

have committed the murder he may yet be hanged,

and the person in this case, whoever he is,may lay
that in his conscience."

Mere formal evidence was then taken, and the

only possible verdict returned, namely, that of

murder against "some person or persons known".

un-

In an article which the coroner, Mr. Oswald,

subsequently wrote for an evening paper, he
referred to the murder as a "perfect crime".
Presumably a perfect crime is one where the

perpetrator is never discovered. If that is so, there

must have been many perfect crimes committed

from time to time. At one time there was an

attempt to make this murder out as one of revenge,

but clearly it was just a well-planned murder for
138 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

robbery. That the culprit or culprits had an

intimate knowledge of the habits and movements

of Creed is obvious, but most skilful crooks make

themselves well acquainted with the ground on

which they are going to "work" before attempting

a
The men
who murdered Creed had
coup.

probably well studied the place and the ments

move-

of Creed carefully before they acted,

very

and then they did so

with great speed and precision.

That they were not taken is proof of the skill with

which they laid their plans and the adroitness with

which they executed them. Of course they may

yet be taken, but the probability is that they will

not.
 VII

THE PAYING GUEST

[The Case of Hilary Rougier, Woking, August, 1926.)

(fl)

In the 1926 Mr. Hilary Rougier, a retired

year

farmer, who had formerly lived in Guernsey, was

staying as a ''paying guest" at a house called

"Nuthurst", situated at Lower Knaphill, about

two miles from Woking. The house had been

rented furnished by a Mr. and Mrs. Lerwill, who

were friends of Rougier's, with whom they had

been acquainted some Mr. Rougier suffered

years.

from extreme asthma. He was very

old.

On July 23rd, Dr. Brewer, a local practitioner,

was summoned by telephone to see him. He was

received by Mrs. Lerwill, who asked him to wait

while she fetched Rougier from the garden, where

the old man used to spend a good deal of his time

pottering about. Dr. Brewer saw him, and he

appeared to him to be a healthy man for his age.

He found slight signs, only slight signs, of bronchial

trouble. Dr. Brewer noticed that the old man

appeared, as he described it, "subdued". He

139
140 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

never spoke for himself, Mrs. Lerwill speaking

for him and seeming to monopoHse the tion.
conversa-

On August 14th Dr. Brewer received another

and a very urgent summons to Nuthurst to see

Rougier. This message was also a telephonic one.

As before, he first saw Mrs. Lerwill. On going

into Mr. Rougier's room he found him in an

unconscious condition. In fact he was actually

dying and was beyond all aid. He was livid,
quietly and automatically breathing. His pulse
was feeble, and the old fellow was all but dead.

There were no signs of external injuries. He

merely examined him casually,as he was absolutely

beyond aid. Dr. Brewer regarded it as a case of

severe cerebral haemorrhage, having occurred ing

dur-

the night. A little later he received a message

at his house over the telephone to the effect that

the patient had passed away.

Dr. Brewer duly issued a certificate on August
1 6th, giving the cause of death as senile decay,
cerebral haemorrhage and coma. He had no

suspicionthat there was anything wrong.

On each occasion that Dr. Brewer was at hurst
Nut-

he never once saw Mr. Rougier alone. Mrs.

Lerwill was always with him and did all the talking.
It seemed to Dr. Brewer that the old fellow was not

allowed to speak for himself. He said that before

Rougier could speak Mrs. Lerwill "butted in"

and spoke for him.

Mr. Rougier was duly buried in St. John's
 THE PAYING GUEST I4I

Churchyard, Woking. In spite of the fact that he

was always regarded as a wealthy man, it was

found that all he possessed at the time of his death

was "^0. This surprised several people who had

good reasons for believing that they knew what

his financial position was.

Well, Mr. Rougier had died and Mr. Rougier
was buried and his body had lain in the ground
for about a year and a half when some startling
events occurred. Early in 1928 rumours arose

that all was not as it should be in connection with

the death of Mr. Rougier. An application was

made to the Home Office for permission to exhume

his body. This was granted and on March i6th

the exhumation took place. It was attended by

the well-known pathologist.Sir Bernard Spilsbury,
who was accompanied by Superintendent Boshier,
of the local police. Sir Bernard found the face of

the corpse covered with a white handkerchief,

which was marked in the corner with the word

*'Lerwiir'. He found no external mark of injury.

There was no haemorrhage on the surface or the

substance of the brain. He found no sign of disease

in him. In the stomach were no signs of disease

or poisoning. He came to the conclusion that

death was not due to cerebral haemorrhage, nor

was there any sign of disease of the brain to account

for death. In short there was no ascertainable

cause of death. Not even that of senile decay.

There was nothing to account for either death or

the period of unconsciousness which preceded it.

142 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

The conclusion thus arrived at was that Mr.

Rougier did not die from natural causes.

The inquest was opened on Thursday, May 1 7th,

1928, by Mr. G. Wells Taylor, at Woking, and was

continued for many days. Mr. W. B. Fr amp ton

was present to represent Mr. Lerwill, Mr. J. G

Symes appearing for Mrs. Lerwill. Mr. W. Crosse

represented Mrs. Carey Smith, sister of the deceased

Mr. Rougier. There was a large array of bottles

and tins in the court.

The first witness called was Dr. Roche Lynch, the

well-known expert, who had made an analysis of

portions of Rougier's body, and found alkaloid phine
mor-

in the organs. He suggested that Rougier must

have taken a considerable quantity of morphine

before his death. The amount present was small,
but the fact that any was found in the viscera as

long as eighteen months after burial indicated that

he must have taken a considerable quantity shortly

before death. In fact, the finding of morphine at

all after so long a period was surprising,as it had

a tendency to disappear as putrefaction proceeds.

It must have been a fatal dose. The symptoms
of a large dose were : First a period of excitement.

Then the victim becomes sleepy, falls off to sleep,

sleep deepens to coma, from which it is impossible
to arouse him. He may also be blue in the face,
and with a slow pulse.
144 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

contained poison. One was a bottle of morphine.

She was shown a bottle taken possession of by the

police,and upon examining it Miss Hope said that

it had contained more when she last saw it. Also

she said that she did not remember the label

"poison" on it,nor was there a cork floatingabout

inside as there was now.

Miss Hope returned to Nuthurst about October,

1926. The Lerwills had then leaving the
gone,
key with an agent or a neighbour. In the time
mean-

she had heard of the death which had taken

place in the house. She went to have a look at the

rooms. She was not satisfied with one of them.

It smelt musty, an odour that was not at all ant.
pleas-
Also the bedstead was discoloured, the polish
had been rubbed oflFthe head, as though it had been
scrubbed.

A sister of Miss Hope also explained that the

rent was to be paid by instalments, but only a third

that was due had been received and that the

matter was in the hands of a lawyer.

Evidence was then given by a Miss Dayborn, a

domestic help, who said that she took shaving

water up to Mr. Rougier the day he died. She

found him breathing heavily. She shook him but

he did not speak. Becoming alarmed, she fetched

the nurse and Mrs. Lerwill. The doctor was sent

for, who said that Mr. Rougier could not live long.
In fact he died at four o'clock that afternoon.

Miss Dayborn was followed by the trained

children's nurse. Miss Aldridge, who was employed
 THE PAYING GUEST I45

by the Lei-wills. She said that she had never seen

Mr. Rougier write anything. She had, however,

seen him sign documents, and had witnessed his

signature. Mr. Lerwill did not sleep at home on

the day that Mr. Rougier died, nor the day before.

She did not remember seeing him during the day.

She said that Mr. Rougier seemed to be very fond

of Mr. and Mrs. Lerwill.

Then came Mr. R. Hilliard, of Crosby House,

Chigwell, who married Rougier 's niece and had

heard of the death of Rougier. He at once phoned

tele-

to Nuthurst. Mrs. Lerwill replied. She said

that she was alone in the house with her children

and asked that the funeral might take place as

soon as possible,on account of the children. The

funeral was accordingly arranged. Mr. Hilliard

was present. After the return to the house he made

a search for Mr. Rougier's belongings, being

helped to do so by Mr. and Mrs. Lerwill. He was

surprised that he could not find the deceased

man's cheque book. In the course of conversation

before the funeral, he explained, Mrs. Lerwill had

suggested cremation.

"Have you since attached importance to

any
that suggestion?" asked the Foreman of the Jury.
"Yes, I have," emphatically replied the witness.
The witness stand was then taken by Mr. A. W.

Crosse, of Bedford Square, who was acting for

Mrs. Carey Smith, the sister of Mr. Rougier. He

described how he went to Nuthurst to make

inquiriesabout Mr. Rougier's death. He saw Mrs.

146 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Lerwill, who merely referred him to her soHcitor

at Brighton. She afforded him no other assistance

or furnished him with any information. He said

he thought it strange that Mr. Rougier should
leave so little,when he should have been worth
between ^^5,000 and ^(^GjOOO. Rougier was paying
the Lerwills so much for living at Nuthurst.
Mr. Crosse then saw Mrs. Lerwill's solicitor,but
he could get no satisfaction out of him. He ally
eventu-

found Rougier's pass-book, which contained

many cheques made payable to the Lerwills. He

thought it very extraordinary. He eventually

succeeded in getting possession of some documents
from a bank at Horsham, where Mrs. Lerwill had

an account. These included some cheques. There

were twelve of them, several of them payable to

Lerwill, the various sums including those of ^{^130,

;(^53j
"^^) "% and ^^^40.There was also a
"
bearer"

cheque for the large sum of ^^1,850. The earliest

cheque was drawn in 1924 and the latest in 1926.

Mrs. Smith, of Crosby House, Essex, the sister
of the dead then went into the box.
man,
Mrs. Smith explained that her brother was left
sufficient money by his father to enable him to

live comfortably. She last saw him alive in the

spring of 1925. He consulted her about sellinghis

house at Guernsey, which was eventually sold for

;{^3,o8o. Mrs. Lerwill was present at this view.

inter-

Mrs. Lerwill said that she would like a

private interview with Rougier, which was accorded

her and which lasted for five minutes. As a rule,
 THE PAYING GUEST 147

she said, her brother was most careful about

money matters. A cheque was produced, made

out to E. C. Smith, being the witness herself,dated

December loth, 1924, about which she was asked.

She explained that when she paid it into the bank

the latter would not cash it, as they were not

satisfied witli the signature. She also said that she

had to him for this cheque.

press
A number of cheques were then handed to the

witness, and she closely examined them. She

said that some were not in her brother's writing,

hand-

some of the signatures were also doubtful.

The cheque for ^1,850 she said was not in her

brother's handwriting. She doubted whether he

would have signed a cheque that was not in his

own handwriting. She also said that the house

at Guernsey was to have been hers, and that he

always consulted her as to change of tenancy.

After her brother's death she made inquiries at his

bank in Guernsey and was surprised to find that

everything had been withdrawn. She then thought

that it had been deposited in another bank, but

was astonished to find that there was nothing left.

Mr. H. T. Knott, the manager of Barclay's Bank,

Horsham, then gave evidence. He said that Mrs.

Lerwill opened her account on December loth,

1925, closing it July, 1927. Mr. Lerwill had no

account there. He said that the cheque for ^1,850,

made out to bearer, was, he believed, paid in by
Mrs. Lerwill. The witness also proved the paying
in of other cheques of varying amounts.
148 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Then came Mr. Lerwill. Before he was asked

any questions the coroner thus addressed him:

"You know the words of the oath, and, of course,

appreciate that these words are not idle words.

You also know, I have no doubt, that it is a principle

of British justicethat no one is obliged to say thing
any-
that will incriminate himself".

The witness nodded and his examination was

proceeded with.

He described himself as of "no occupation",

and gave his address as West End Park, Chesham.
He then went on to explain that when he and his

wife were living at Bexhill, Mr. Rougier asked if

he could live with them. They consented, and he

lived with them at various places, including

Hassocks, near Brighton, Broadbridge Heath and

Lower Knaphill. At Broadbridge his, Rougier 's,

health began to fail, his breathing being very
difficult. He said himself he thought it was due

to his advanced During the last month of his

age.
life, the witness said, the old man's breathing
became very bad, so bad, indeed, that he was

hardly able to speak.

Lerwill said that he was in London a few days
before Rougier died. One day his wife sent to him

that Rougier was worse. He at once went to

Woking, and returned to town again in the noon.

after-

He was then questioned about the cheques,

and said that he was perfectly certain that every

cheque produced in court had been signed by

Rougier. He explained that the money had been
 THE PAYING GUEST 1 49

given to him from time to time by Rougier in order

to help him, and that Rougier had expressed

himself as glad to be able to do so. He admitted

that although he had no occupation he had been

trs'ingto get something to do. The coroner then

asked him who, under the circumstances, was going

to pay the four- and-a-half guineas rent of the house

they had taken, and the witness replied that he

would himself have done so had not a catering

business he had taken at Woking failed.

In answer to a question as to why a doctor had

not been called before, the witness explained that

as the old man had been getting worse during the

last week or two a doctor could only go on giving

him medicine. When he returned to Nuthurst, he

added, he did, in fact, suggest that a doctor should

be called that day. Asked as to the footing on

wliich Rougier was in the house, the witness replied

that of a paying guest. (This was true enough.
He was certainly a paying guest.) No ments,
arrange-

however, the witness admitted, had been

made as to maintenance. No payments were made

during the first month or two. Rougier had helped

him in various business arrangements. Before

he came to live with them he had helped with

a guarantee. Rougier had paid nothing at

Horsham and Nuthurst, although the witness

admitted that he had received "certain amounts"
from him.

Lerwill could not remember when the last

payment was made.

 150 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"I wonder if I can remind you," commented

the coroner.

He then handed the witness some cheques,

caUing his special attention to the one for "So,
"
I do not remember receiving that," repHed the

witness, "though probably I did."

"The payments were very frequent," remarked

the coroner.

"That is money he had been giving me for my

different debts and one thing and another," replied
Lerwill.

The witness could not point to any cheque which

could be said to have been in payment of mainten-

ance,

nor did he know why there was no record of

any cheque being paid after May, 1926. All

cheques, he explained, were "gifts".

A cheque for "g^o, payable to a solicitor,was
put to him, and he said that he was in debt at the

time and this cheque was in settlement. He was

then shown the cheque for ^1,850.

"I filled that cheque for Mr. Rougier," he said.
"
It was partly to off a guarantee for me to the
pay
Westminster Bank at Woking for "j^o. He, Mr.

Rougier, as guarantor, was called upon to pay

that for me."

The examination of Mr. Lerwill was adjourned

at this stage. In the meantime Dr. Brewer was

recalled, and said he was quite certain that the

news of the death of Rougier was sent to him by

telephone at 12 o'clock in the day, when he turned
re-

for lunch. Witnesses had said that Rougier

 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS
152

"I have not the faintest idea," replied the

witness. "I should have looked after him, or my

people would."

"Why should people be called upon to

your
maintain Mr. Rougier," asked the coroner, "from

whom you have had ;;(^55000

or /^6,ooo ?"
"My people would have looked after him if I

had asked them," he replied.

The coroner then remarked that morphine had

been found in Rougier's body and asked him if he

knew anything about it.

Nothing whatever," he replied.

Do Rougier got it himself?" asked
you suggest
the coroner.

"He might have done," replied Lerwill.

"Do consider he took it himself?" asked
you
the to which the witness replied, "I
coroner,
cannot say."
The witness was then asked to explain the

in the house of a bottle of laudanum, and

presence
he said that Rougier asked him to get some for his

dog's which were afflicted with eczema.

paws,
He denied all knowledge of the phial of morphine
or bottle of laudanum found in the cupboard, as

he had never "explored" the cupboard.

The witness was then cross-examined by Mr.

Crosse, representing Mrs. Smith.

"Have explanation as to why he should

you any
give you ^^6,000 and leave himself with only ^^50 ?"
was his first question.
"No," replied Lerwill. "I think he wanted to
 THE PAYING GUEST I53

help me and he did it. He said he had never

been so happy in his Hfe as when he was Hving

\vdth me."

"Don't you think it was an extraordinary thing,"

continued Mr. Crosse, "that he died just when he

had got rid of all his money ?"

"
I don't think it extraordinary," replied Lerwill.
That concluded the examination and cross-

examination of Lerwill.

The jury then expressed their dissatisfaction at

the witness not being able to be more definite

about the purchase of laudanum for Rougier's dog.

They could not make out, they said, why, as

Rougier was known to be fond of walking, he had

not gone to the chemist's himself.

Mrs. Lerwill then went into the box.

She explained that Mr. Rougier took dislikes to

people and asked not to be left alone with Dr.

Brewer. Also Rougier would not answer questions

put to him by the doctor.

Questioned on the subject of finance, she said

that she had no of her own, it all belonged

money
to her husband. The banking account was

opened in her name as her husband was in culties

diffi-

at the time. In reply to a question, she

denied ever having administered noxious drug
any
to Rougier.
Mr. A. A. H. Hardwicke, solicitor,of Brighton,
then gave evidence. He said that he acted for
Mr. and Mrs. Lerwill in the summer of and
1925,
met Rougier on several occasions. Rougier had
154 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

told him that he had known Lerwill since he was a

boy and that he was fond of him. In fact

very
there was, he said, nobody he cared about but the
Lerwills. He further said he was prepared to

advance sums of money to help Lerwill. Rougier

said he had once lived with his sister,but was so

uncomfortable with her that he left and went to

live with the Lerwills.

A police sergeant then entered the witness-box

and said:

"After the statement by Mr. Lerwill to-day I

caused inquiries to be made at Horsham with

reference to the bottle of laudanum, and the

reply I received was: 'Search has been made in

the poison registersof all chemists in Horsham.

No record of sale of poison to W. F. Lerwill since

1924. All sold have been contained in tions'."

prescrip-

The final hearing of the inquest was held on

Wednesday, May 30th. The coroner stated that

he had received a number of anonymous letters

bearing on the case, but said that no notice should

be taken of them.

Mrs. Lerwill was recalled, and questioned about

certain letters in her handwriting. An explanation

of the matters referred to in these, which were

not all connected with the death of Rougier, was

supplied by Mr. Preston, a solicitor,of Bishopsgate.

It transpired during this explanation that it was

contemplated bringing an action against Lerwill

for the return of the money obtained from Rougier

 THE PAYING GUEST I55

but whether such an action was ever launched

does not to be obvious. Mrs. Smith's

appear
solicitor was supposed to have had the matter in

hand.

That concluded the taking of evidence.

A proclamation was then made for any other

witnesses to come forward, it being read by the

coroner's officer from both doors of the court.

The coroner then made a brief summing-up.

He pointed out to the jury that it would be wrong
for them to name or persons in a
any person
finding involving a criminal offence, unless they
were satisfied without a reasonable doubt that

there was a prima faciecase on the evidence against

the person named.

At the request of the jury, the coroner read

over the evidence of Mrs. Lerwill. They then

retired and shortly afi;er returned with the verdict

that Mr. Rougier died from morphine poisoning

not self-administered.

Which of course meant that Mr. Rougier had

been murdered by somebody not named.

After the verdict was returned and as Lerwill

was leaving the court, a police constable said to

him "Superintendent Boshier wants to speak to

you". Lerwill then strolled up to the tendent

Superin-
and asked him, "Do want to see me ?"
you
"No," replied Boshier, and that was all that pired.
trans-

Mrs. Lerwill then asked a constable if the

Superintendent wanted to see her, and the constable

replied,"No, it is all right". "What did he call

 156 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

me back for?" asked Mrs. Lerwill. There the

pecuHar incident ended, Mr. and Mrs. Lerwill

leaving the building by separate exits.

Thus the matter ended and no light has since

been thrown on the mystery of Hilary Rougier's

death. In the following September it cropped up

again. A "development" was supposed to have

occurred. Superintendent Boshier, who was then

on holiday, was recalled by the Home Office and

had a conference with the C.I.D. The incident

was shrouded in mystery, and no details were

vouchsafed for publication. Nothing transpired,

and there has been silence ever since. It was just
of those little sequels which often attend
one vague
the aftermath of unsolved murder mysteries, like

the intermittent flickerings of a conflagration prior

to its total extinction.

As to who achieved the "removal" of old man

Rougier with the depleted exchequer, who shall

or can ? The whole mind of the police on the

say

subject would doubt be interesting and

no very

enlightening, but of all classes of the community

the police are least able to perform that mental

revelation. It is one of those cases where the reader

must form his own judgment, basing his opinion

on the facts which have been laid before him.

 VIII

THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW

{The Case of Thomas Henry Jackson^ February^ 1929.)

{a)

In the early part of the there lived at

year 1929

a bungalow at The Mumbles, Swansea, a Mr. and

Mrs. Jackson. They had an adopted child, a little

girl named Betty. On February 4th, Mrs. Jackson,

accompanied by a neighbour named Mrs. Dimick,
went to a cinema. Mr. Jackson went to bed. There

was a dog in the house. When the two women

returned from the picture theatre it was about ten

o'clock. They separated, making their to

way

their respective homes. Mr: Dimick, however, ^/

had not had time to get indoors when she was

alarmed by hearing a loud screaming coming from

the direction of the Jackson bungalow. So she at

once made her there. On going to the back

way
of the Jackson bungalow she found Mrs. Jackson
upon the ground and being lifted by her
up
husband. This was near the back door of the

bungalow. Mrs. Jackson was bleeding from the

head and was unconscious. She was carried

indoors to the scullery.

157
 158 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

A little later another neighbour, a Mrs. Gammon,

came in and offered to help. While in bed Jackson
had been suddenly roused by hearing screaming
at the back of the bungalow. He had immediately
got and gone out, accompanied by his dog,
up
and found his wife lying on the ground. She had

evidently been savagely attacked and beaten about

the head with some blunt instrument. No weapon

was found near the place of attack.

Jackson and Mrs. Dimick did their best to

revive Mrs. Jackson, but she remained unconscious.

They bathed her face and attended to her generally.

Later "
about midnight " a doctor was called, and
Mrs. Jackson was conveyed to hospital in a taxi

cab. Eventually the police were notified of the case

by telephone by the night porter of the hospital.

Mrs. Jackson was wearing an overcoat, on the

collar of which there was blood. Most of the

blood was on the lining, on the right side. The

coat was over her head, as though she had raised

it to protect herself against the blows, or her

assailant had covered her head with it in order to

smother her cries. She was lying about eight feet

from the back door, where she had collapsed. A

few days later Mrs. Jackson died without having

once regained consciousness and without uttering a
word. Thus the mystery was sealed.

Mrs. Jackson was regarded by most people who

knew her, or thought they knew her, in the vicinity

l6o MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

that she had to see her agent occasionally to see

what commissions, if any, he had for her.

Jackson took her to be a woman of wealth who

perhaps was dabbling in authorship as a hobby.

She was always elegantly dressed and had a

charming way with her. She was liberal with her

even to the degree of extravagance, and

money,
would sometimes give as much as a pound note

as a tip for quite a triflingservice.

After a few weeks' acquaintance the lady invited

Jackson (as we will now call him) to her house at

Southampton Terrace, Farnborough. It was a fine

house, well furnished, and she appeared to be

living there alone. A next-door neighbour did

cooking for her and a girlcame in to do the cleaning.

Jackson stayed there for some weeks, and became

very fond of his friend. So that when one day

Madame B presumably she had represented
,

herself as a widow, asked him if he would like to

her, he was not disinclined to fall in with

marry
her suggestion. In addition to the fact that he

had become fond of her, there was the tempting

very
prospect of becoming the husband of a wealthy
woman, more particularly as he himself was not

by any means in affluent circumstances.

So a marriage was accordingly arranged. But

before the ceremony could be performed the lady

wanted one little detail attended to. She had seen

Jackson's discharge and by that means had

papers
learned his true name. She objected that Jackson
was much too prosaic a name for her to assume,
 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW l6l

SO she insisted that he should adhere to the name of

Ingram, and that, in addition, he should promote

himself to the rank of Captain. He agreed, and

so shortly after he was married to the lady in the

name ofCaptain Ingram. The marriage took place

at a register office, although the name of the

regiment he was supposed to be in was not given.

They spent their honeymoon by travelling about
to different places, and finallysettled at a place
called Warwick Farm, Ash Vale, Surrey, which

Jackson described as "a compact little place of

about seven- and-a-half acres". Here his wife

became very extravagant in the manner in which

she embellished the property, expending large

sums of money in stocking the place with all kinds

of ornamental and fruit trees, poultry, pigs, etc.

She must have spent thousands of pounds on the

place, and paid any price that was asked her for

anything she wanted. She did not haggle but paid

right away. She also dealt liberally with her

servants, giving them freely all sorts of luxuries,

such, for instance, as port, cake, biscuits, lavish
dinners, and so on. And in return they thoroughly
neglected their duties, so it was said.
For about three they remained at Ash
years
Vale, each year going for a wonderful summer

holiday.
In 1922 Jackson had a desire to see his people
at Swansea, but could not very well do so in his
assumed name. This difficulty,
however, was mounted
sur-

by the two getting married again at a

162 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Cardiff register office in the name of Jackson.

He then introduced his wife to his people and got
a job as an exhibition bilHards player. His father

kept the Ship Inn, and the two stayed there for

a fortnight. Mrs. Jackson became very fond of

Swansea and it was decided to settle there. It was

while they were at Ash Vale that, as they were

not likelyto have any children of their own, they

adopted the little girl, Betty. The adoption was

carried out in due legalform. Mrs. Jackson wanted

it to be believed that the child was, in fact, her own,

and means were taken to create that impression.
Eventually Mrs. Jackson took the bungalow at The

Mumbles, where she lived with her husband until

the tragedy which put an end to her career.

We must now go back again chronologically and

relate some incidents which occurred prior to those

related above.

During the war Mrs. Jackson, posing as a lady

of distinction and means, mixed freelywith young
military officers. It may be said at once that she

was, in fact, of very humble origin, being the

daughter of an agricultural labourer, who quently

subse-

became a gardener. She was not in any

way entitled to any of the exalted positionswhich

she assumed. At one time she claimed to be the

daughter of the Duke of Abercorn. She came to

make use of the name B as she had been living

with a man of that name. She had freely black-
mailed

the officers with whom she had become

acquainted, or those of them she managed to get

 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW 163
into her clutches, at which, by the way, she was

eminently successful. This humble, though less,

relent-

Delilah made victims wherever she went, and

pitifultragedy ever followed in her wake. But the

most poignant of all was that connected with a

criminal charge, which doubdess had a direct

connection with her eventual untimely though not

unwelcome passing hence.

One day, while this human privateer was

*'
cruising" along Charing Cross Road, her baleful

fell upon a man who held an official position

eyes
in connection with a trade union. In the racy

phraseology of the day, he "fell for her". As is

usual with such decoys, the woman had an unfailing

instinct for "spotting" preciselythe man who would

become an and a complete victim. The man

easy
in question was such an individual. The meeting
occurred somewhere in the year 1914. The woman

was then callingherself Mollie B .

As usual, she
was the first to speak. Unfortunately for himself, the
man responded. The two adjourned to a tea shop,
where the lady promptly and sincerely "told the

tale". He listened sympathetically to the cious

menda-

narrative poured into his ears by the turess,

adven-

and her tale was a tale of woe. She was,

she said, starving. Her husband, she declared, was

a clerk who could get no work, who was so poor

in fact that he was unable to obtain enough food

to keep body and soul together. It looked as

though the woman must have had some intuitive

knowledge of the man's career, for he was, in fact,

 164 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

himself a working man, who, by means of appU-

cation and unremitting industry,had raised himself

to a positionof trust and prominence with the union

in question. How natural for such a man to

sympathise with a woman in such a presumed

position! And sympathise he did.

The acquaintance grew, as the woman intended

it should, until it became of an intimate character.

It was not long before Delilah had extracted or

extorted from her victim full information as to his

position. She learned that he was secretary and

treasurer of the union and that he had control of

large sums of money. This was just the kind of

"bird" she most desired to snare, and one, over,

more-

ready and easy for the plucking. She was

not long in beginning this process of acquirement.

Incidentallyshe also learned "
and this was valuable

information for her "

^that the man was a married

man with children and that he had a comfortable

though not ostentatious home in the southern

suburbs of London. He lived in a "respectable"

circle, and his good name and his peace of mind

were precious to him. That good name and peace

of mind were now in her possession and she meant

to make him dearly for it. She would let him

pay
retain it, but at a pretty stiff price. It would be

at the cost of her own life of luxury and self-

indulgence.
Thus began this sordid and sorrowful tragedy.
It was mainly from this victim that Mrs. Jackson
acquired her wealth with which she made such a
 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW 1 65
lavish show wherever she went, and not, as she led

some people to suppose, from the work of her pen,

which would not have procured her one of the

meals which heartless blackmail had bought for

her. It is pretty certain that on one isolated

occasion only had any intimate intercourse occurred

betsveen her and her victim, yet for many years

afterwards the lavish "bleeding" process tinued.
con-

Deeper and deeper into the inextricable

mire went the luckless man. To keep the dread

secret safe the man filched and filched from his

trust funds until the aggregate amount assumed

formidable proportions. When his falsifications

had mounted to well-nigh ^20,000, most of which

had gone into the capacious maw of Mrs. Jackson,

the truth came to light,and, costly as it had been,
the dread secret was out and the fierce light of

public ignominy beat upon the ruined man.

He was arrested and duly appeared at the police-

court. His association with Mrs. Jackson, of course,

became known, and she was called upon to give

evidence. Then a strange thing occurred. Her

name was suppressed! Subsequently a judge asked

why, and the police then explained that they

thought that by doing this it might lead to tion
restitu-

or partial restitution. Whoever thought that

must have been poor readers of human nature.

Restitution from such a woman as Mrs. Jackson!

The idea was preposterous and they ought to have
known it. However, this degraded who
woman,
should have been held up to shame and loathing.
l66 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

was shielded behind the alias of "Madame X."

And as such she was known all through it. In fact

"
the case became known as the Madame X Case".

Eventually the man appeared at the Central

Criminal Court, although Mrs. Jackson was not

called there. She appeared only at the police

court. The man was duly convicted and sentenced

to five years' penal servitude. The woman went

back to her debauchery. We do not know what

happened to the man's unfortunate wife and

children. Perhaps it would be as well not to

inquire into it. But our imagination can supply a

good deal of the story and our hearts feel sore at

the bitter reflection.

We will now move forward again to the scene

and date of the murder.

When the police searched the bungalow they

found a motor tyre wrench hidden under a cushion

on a chair. They took possession of this, as they

considered that it might well have been the
very

weapon with which the murder had been mitted.

com-

It was not long, as may very well be

supposed, before suspicion was directed towards

Jackson, and shortly after,in fact, he was arrested

and charged with the crime. He protested his

innocence. The trial took place the following July

at the Glamorgan Assizes at Swansea, before Mr.

Justice Wright. Mr. Trevor Hunt, K.C., led for

1 68 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

emergencies. The police were sure to hear of it,

and Jackson did, in fact, do his best for his wife

immediately he found her. Which is scarcely the

behaviour of a guilty man. No weapon was ever

found, if you except the motor tyre wrench. And

one can hardly credit the supposition of the

prosecution that Jackson, after murdering his wife

with it, popped it under the cushion so that the

police could afterwards find it! He would, of

course, have got rid of it altogether,which would

not have been a difficult thing to do with such a

weapon. It was not said, so far as can be tained,

ascer-

whether there were any traces of blood

upon it. It was, however, evident that no traces

of blood were to be found upon Jackson himself,

which, even with the assistance of the jacket as a

screen, would be very improbable if he were the

assailant.

Mrs. Jackson was married, in the first instance,

to Jackson in her maiden name, Kate Atkinson,
which was her real name. It transpired during
the trial that Mrs. Jackson was constantly dreading
something, that she was always in a very nervous

condition, which was not surprising under the

circumstances. She occasionally received mous

anony-

threatening letters, two of which were read

in court. They were worded as follows :

*'
Lest forget. This is to tell you that we are
you
watching you and we will get you. You husband-

stealer. You robber of miners' money that would

 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW 1 69
have fed starving children; you and that man of

I he is somebody's husband as
yours. suppose
well.
''
When we get you we will tar and feather you,
and for quid have taken from us you
every you
will get another lump of tar and one more feather.

''We will show people you are black outside as

are in. We don't mind doing quod for you.

you

. . .
We will get you yet."

The other letter ran :

"Dear Madame, "

We are still watching and

waiting. The pleasure is ours. When you don't

expect us we will drop on you, and when we have

finished with you your own mother won't know

you.
"You foul thing. Call yourself a woman, do

you ? You are a disgrace to the name.

"How many more men have you blackmailed

until they have to pinch money to shut you up ?"

The prosecution suggested that these letters were

written by the prisoner for the purpose of leading

suspicion away from himself, but there was nothing
but a suggestion in it. There was certainly no

evidence to confirm it, nor does there to

appear
have been any attempt to do more than throw out

the suggestion.
The brother of the dead a Liverpool
woman,
fireman, named Robert Atkinson, gave evidence.
170 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

He said he had not seen his sister for fifteen years.

The witness, in falteringtones, asked if he might
make an appeal. When the judge asked him what
he wanted to say, he said:

"Only this. I am here representing my family.

1 want to say that we go out to brother-in-law
my
with open arms and love."

These words were received with sympathetic

applause and murmurs.

Dr. A. F. S. Sladden, of the Swansea Hospital,

produced a human skull, on which he had marked
the positionof nine wounds found on Mrs. Jackson's
head, and Detective Wright, of the Swansea police,
said that he found a pair of woman's gloves on a

table in the bungalow. On the inside of the right

hand gauntlet was a piece of earth with a hair

hanging to it.

Then came Chief

Inspector Collins, of Scotland
Yard, who testified to taking a long statement from

Jackson on February 15th, which took the form

of the story of the prisoner'slife. Jackson

appears
to have made a pretty exhaustive confession,
withholding nothing concerning himself and his

doings. The statement was begun, so the Inspector

said, at 10.15 at night, and was continued until

midnight. There was an interval then until 12.45,

when the note-taking was continued until about

2 a.m. The following day the statement was

continued at 2 p.m. and concluded at 6 p.m.

This statement contained most of the facts

already set forth above. In it Jackson said that he

 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW 17I

regarded his wife as a person who had received a

brilHant education, by reason of her speech and

personahty. She had told him that she was the

daughter of the Duke of Abercorn. He

youngest
also related how they came to adopt the girl,Betty,
and how, on one occasion, at Swansea, a parcel
of woollies arrived for the child. The inner

wrapping was addressed to Lord and son's

Jack-
,

wife led him to believe that the child was the

illegitimateoffspringof that Peer. Of course there

was no truth in it.

One of the witnesses was a who said

man,
that he Uved for a time with "Madame X",
who was known as Molly B .
In reply to

Mr. Trevor Hunt, he said that he would not

describe her as being a well-educated woman,

but clever and a good talker. He was asked by
counsel whether he had ever written a ing
threaten-

letter to Molly B and he said that

,

he never had. He went on to explain that

he first met the woman while walking down

Piccadilly. She was never a model, as was posed,

sup-
but she would occasionally bring him

manuscripts of stories. She did not write the

stories. He had thought that the chapter in his

life connected with this woman was closed for

ever.

Detective Inspector John Dean, of the politan

Metro-

Police, gave particulars of the case at the

Old Bailey, which has already been dealt with.
His evidence was merely formal.
 172 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

The well-known pathologist, who has appeared

in so many celebrated cases. Dr. Roche Lynch,
gave some interestingevidence as to the nature of

the attack upon Mrs. Jackson. For the purpose of

illustratinghis theories a dressmaker's dummy

figure was produced in court, on which was fitted

the jumper and black

loosely-fitting coat which

Mrs. Jackson was wearing at the time she was

attacked. Dr. Lynch then demonstrated to the

jury how the cuts in the clothing might have been

caused. In addition to the tyre lever or wrench,

a broken bottle had also been suggested as the

weapon which might have been employed. Dr.

Lynch said he had experimented with both and

had succeeded in obtaining similar cuts with both.

Which, although interesting,was not, it must be

confessed, very decisive or definite.

At this stage Mr. Jenkin Jones, on behalf of the

prisoner, submitted that there was no case to go

to a jury. The Judge, however, ruled that there

was, so Mr. Jones called his client to the witness-

box. Mr. Jackson made a good witness, telling

his story in a quiet, self-contained and convincing
manner. He said, referringto his discovery of the

murder: "I had gone to bed some little time after

my wife had gone to the cinema. Suddenly I

heard a peculiar scream, then another, and a third

at the back of the bungalow. I ran downstairs

with my dog, which was barking. When I opened

the back door I saw my wife on the ground with

one hand slightlyraised. She appeared to be on

 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW 1 73

her knees. About five or six yards away was Mrs.

Dimick."

He then went on to describe how he, with the

assistance of Mrs. Dimick, got his wife inside the

bungalow. He then went up to dress, leaving

Mrs. Dimick to bathe his wife's face. When the

doctor arrived he asked who might have done it,

and Jackson replied that he had no idea. He then

referred to the fact that his wife had received

several anonymous and threatening letters,and that

she was in consequence in a very nervous condition.

He then described the taking of a statement

from him by Inspector Collins. He said that when

the Inspector suggested stopping, at 2 a.m., he

said he would rather continue.

"Did you answer all the questions put to you ?"

asked Mr. Jones.

"I answered them all," replied Jackson, "but
my answers were never put down in my own

language."
"Did you hide anything?" asked Mr. Jones.
"I had nothing to hide," quietly repliedJackson.
"Did you murder wife?" Mr. Jones'
your was

final and crucial question.

"No," replied Jackson. "I looked after her for

ten years."
Jackson was cross-examined by Mr. Trevor
Hunt. One of his questions was:

"Did you, within a day or two of the attack on

your wife, say to more than one person,

'
They
are trying to say I did it' ?"
174 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"I was only too pleased to answer anything,"

was Jackson's reply, adding, "I am innocent."

"Were surprised," continued Mr. Hunt,

you
"because thought that by all your talk about
you
mystery you had bluflfed the police into thinking
you were innocent?"
"There was no such thing as bluff in what I

said," protested Jackson.

"Are you sure," pressed Mr. Hunt, "that

when your wife returned you did not have a

quarrel and that you lost your temper?"

"I never spoke or did anything to my wife

until I found her outside," replied Jackson

emphatically.
In this connection it is interesting to refer to

the evidence of Mrs. Dimick, who said that the

scream she heard, which was of course the scream

uttered by Mrs. Jackson when she was being

attacked, came so quickly after their separating
that there was not time for Jackson to have had

any encounter with his wife.

At the conclusion of counsel's cross-examination,

Mr. Justice Wright put some questions to the

witness.
"
If you thought that some stranger had struck

your wife's head, why didn't you raise a hue and

cry at once and call for the police?"

"I didn't know until after," repliedJackson. "I

thought she had a cut on the face until we had

bathed it."

"You must have seen what she was suffering

176 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"But you knew that someone had manhandled

your wife," he said. "Why did you not get the

pohce on the track ?"

"I thought the doctor would know what to do,"

was Jackson's reply.
In his statement Jackson had said that when he

met his wife he had ;"'400,and that he had an idea

of going to Australia. Counsel asked him why he

did not go, and he replied that he would not be

able to pay "140 for fares and still have enough

to set up in business there. Being pressed very
hard on this point, Jackson suddenly lost his

characteristic self-control and made a heated

reply :
"
My money is my own affair ! he almost shouted.

What has my money to do with this business ?"

cc
You will see in a moment," replied Mr. Hunt.
"Did you on occasions get as indignant with your
wife as you have just been with me ?" slyly asked
counsel.

"I am not indignant," protested Jackson. "I

was simply wondering about your manner," he

observed quietly, having cooled down again.

"Think of what I have been through," he added
with some emotion, "four months in gaol for

nothing."
But Mr. Hunt persistedin pressing his point:
"But did you ever display the same temper
with your wife?" he repeated.
In reply Jackson quietly observed,
"
I never get out of temper."
 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW I77

Mr. Hunt continued:

"Did not think when your wife's money had
you

disappeared that it would be good to get rid of her

and her bad temper?" he asked.

''She was quick tempered," admitted Jackson,

''but she was the most charming woman you could

meet."

"Do think it charming of her to take a

you

carving knife to you?" Mr. Hunt asked.

This incident, referred to by counsel, was

described in the statement already referred to.

During one of their squabbles Mrs. Jackson had

threatened him with a carving knife.

"Anyone would do that under the impulse of

the moment," said Jackson. "She never hurt me."

"But you ran away?" said counsel.

"That was only sensible," said Jackson, with a

faint smile.

"You say that this is a case in which a cloud of

suspicion has been built against you," continued

up
Mr. Hunt, "but that you have not created

mystery about your wife to protect yourself?"

"I have only told what I know," replied
you
Jackson.
The speeches by counsel did not occupy a great
deal of time. Mr. Jones made an eloquent and

spirited effort on behalf of his client. His ments

argu-

were both forcible and convincing. He

declared that there was not sufficient evidence on

which to condemn a fly. He maintained that

Jackson's conduct was not that of one who had

178 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

murdered his wife, and that if he had meant to

murder his wife he would not have adopted the

painstaking methods he did to revive her.

The argument adopted by Mr. Hunt on behalf

of the prosecution was that Jackson had got tired

of working and earning a livelihood for both,
after he had been benefiting so extensivelyfrom his

wife in the past. He suggested that on the night

of the murder the two had a quarrel, and that the

prisoner'ssubsequent conduct was consistent with

his efforts to save himself from the consequences

of the deed.

The Judge, during his summing-up, made nant

preg-
observations which were anything but able
favour-

towards the prisoner. He warned the jury

not to allow sentiment to influence them in their

judgment. He said it seemed to him that the

theory of the prosecution was a most reasonable

and rational one, and that he did not see how any
other view of the sequence of events, and the

nature of the attack, was possible.

"If any stranger did murder this woman," his

lordship declared, "it must have been the result

of a deliberate scheme and of set purpose. I have

heard no evidence which would indicate in any

that Mrs. Jackson had any enemies likely to
way
do her harm. . . .
There is circumstantial dence
evi-

against the prisoner which, I venture to

think, is very strong. There is no evidence of any

secret enemy."
In the face of all that was revealed as to the
 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW 1 79

dead these observations the

past of the woman, on

of the Judge are difficult to understand.

part
Clearly he was altogether ignoring the anonymous

letters, which does not seem fair to the accused,

since not the slightestevidence was produced to

written by the prisoner.

even suggest that they were

His lordship was also ignoring the fact that it had

been clearly demonstrated that Mrs. Jackson was

at all times nervous and apprehensive of the

very
attack of a secret enemy.
It is also rather difficult to understand how sel
coun-

for the prosecution could argue, in face of the

evidence of Mrs. Dimick, that there arose a quarrel

between Jackson and his wife which led to the

murder. It takes some time for a quarrel to be

worked up till it culminates in a deed of killing.

However, the jury would appear to have thought
differentlyfrom both the Judge and counsel for

the prosecution, for, after an hour's deliberation,

they returned with a verdict of acquittal. And it

seemed to afford the foreman of the jury able

consider-

satisfaction to utter the words, "Not guilty".

The verdict was received, moreover, with general
and loudly expressed approval, both inside and

outside the court. In fact,it assumed the dimensions

of a full-sized demonstration.
Thus Jackson returned to his friends a free man,
and the case has since remained, "unfinished".
That is the real has been
to say, culprit never

taken. It clear, however, that Mrs.

seems pretty
Jackson was murdered with premeditation and of
 l8o MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

set-purpose by somebody connected with one of

her many blackmailing exploits. She had evidently
been watched for some time, and on the night that

she went to the cinema with her neighbour, Mrs.

Dimick, the murderer concealed himself somewhere

near the bungalow, awaiting her return. When she

arrived he suddenly launched a violent attack

upon her, and then cleared off before anybody

had time to taking his with him.
appear, weapon
I think the police would have stood a better
chance of tracking him if they had not so quickly
and exclusively fixed their minds the
upon conceived
pre-
idea that Jackson was the culprit.
It will be observed that the same Judge presided
over this trial as that of the Liverpool insurance

official,Wallace "
Mr. Justice Wright. It is inter-
esting

to compare the two cases, because in each

instance the jury returned a verdict which did not

seem to be indicated by the Judge's summing-up.

In the Liverpool the
case story of which follows this,
Mr. Justice Wright almost directly and definitely
intimated to the jury that there was not sufficient
evidence on which to convict. Yet, in spite of that

weighty opinion, they took little time to arrive at

a verdict of Guilty. In the Jackson as we

case,
have seen, the jury, in spiteof what one must regard
as distinctlyunfavourable
a summing-up for the

prisoner, took about the same time to arrive at a

verdict of acquittal.
These are notable exceptions to the general rule.
There sometimes exist certain factors in the story
 THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW l8l

of a
crime and in its presentation to the court by

counsel, which make such an impression on

the

minds of the jurymen that they are

led to ignore

much that the Judge in his final address. I

says

shall presently indicate what I believe brought

about that state of things in the Liverpool case.

In the Jackson there seems to be little doubt

case

that the jury were

much impressed in Jackson's

favour by the details which were

revealed of the

odious life led by the dead woman.

One can

scarcely be surprised at this. But in spite of the

sentimental side of the verdict, I venture to think

that the finding of the jury was correct the

upon

evidence put forward.

 IX

THE CLUE OF THE TELEPHONE MESSAGE

{The Case of William Herbert Wallace^ Liverpool,

January, 1931.)

{a)

William Herbert Wallace, living at Wolverton

Street, Anfield, Liverpool, had for some years

been employed as an insurance agent. He had

been years at the house where he lived, was

many
well-known and respected by his neighbours and

lived happily with his wife. In fact they were

regarded by all who knew them as an "ideal

couple". There were no

children. The
company
Wallace was employed by was the Prudential.

Wallace was a member of the Central Chess

Club, which met at the Central Cafe, North John

Street. On Monday evening, January 19th, 1931,

telephone was received at the Cafe,

a message

requesting Wallace to meet a man named Qual-

trough, at Menlove Gardens East, at 7.30 the
25

next night. The was received by the

message

captain of the club, a Mr. Beattie, who passed it

to Wallace, at the same time remarking that

on

it was "in the nature of your

business". Meaning,
182
184 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

In a further effort to discover the whereabouts

of Menlove Gardens East, Wallace entered a agent's

news-

shop in Allerton Road and asked for a

directory, at the same time informing the prietress

pro-
that he was looking for Menlove Gardens

East. Apparently he failed to discover the address

and returned home, where he arrived about 8.30.

He had, in fact, come to the conclusion that the
address given him was a false one, and this fact

aroused suspicions in his mind as to the object of

the message. Simultaneously with this thought

there arose in his mind fears as to the safety of
his wife "
a frail little woman, in delicate health "

so that he returned to his house with all speed.

The idea which had shaped itself in his mind was

that the message had been sent by burglars, who

had used that device to get him out of the way.
Next to Wallace's house there lived a Mr.

Johnston. About 8.45 on the night in question,

that gentleman was leaving his house by the back

way, with his wife. As he did so he caught sight

of Wallace, approaching his own back door. Said
Wallace to his next-door neighbour, "Have you
heard anything unusual to-night?" Mr. Johnston
replied,"No, what has happened ?" Then Wallace

said, "I have tried both the back and the front

doors, and they are both locked against me".

Mr. Johnston then suggested that Wallace should
have another try. Wallace thereupon opened the

outer door, went along the passage and opened the

inner door, calling back to Johnston, "It opens
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 1 85
now". Then the latter said, "Have a look round

and I will wait". Wallace then entered his house.

He at once went upstairs, but saw nothing to

alarm him. He then returned downstairs and went

into the front sitting-room, where a terrible sight

met his eyes. His wife was lying dead upon the

floor! Her head had been battered in.

In the meantime Mr. Johnston had been following

the movements of his neighbour up and downstairs

by means of the light that the latter carried. He

was rather anxious to know whether things were

all right inside, and presently Wallace came out

"
again in a state of agitation and exclaimed, Come

and see. She has been killed". Thereupon Mr.

Johnston and his wife went inside and saw the

body of Mrs. Wallace lying on the floor. Wallace

then took them into the kitchen and pointed to a

cabinet, the door of which had been wrenched off.

He also took down a cash-box, which was on a

shelf about 7 ft. high, opened it and announced

that about "/^ was missing. These discoveries

seemed to confirm the burglary theory.
Near the body of Mrs. Wallace was a bloodstained
mackintosh or raincoat. This belonged to Wallace,
had been used by him that day, and usually hung
up in the hall. Mrs. Wallace had been killed by
being struck many times over the head with some

blunt instrument. A poker and a metal rod were

missing from the house. They were never found.

Either of these, it was confidently conjectured,
might have been the employed.
weapon
1 86 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

There were some peculiar features about this

murder. There was no blood anywhere except

near where the body lay. With two exceptions.
In the bedroom upstairs,where the Wallaces slept,
there was a vase on the mantelpiece. In this,
sticking out and plain for anybody to see, were

five Treasury notes. Upon one of these was a

bloodstain. There was also a small stain of blood

on the of a W.C. upstairs. The room in which

pan
the body of Mrs. Wallace was found was not one

in which the usually lived, but was

Wallaces only
used on special occasions, when, for instance, a
friend might call. The Wallaces invariably lived

in the kitchen. There was a gas-firein the sitting-

room, which had been lighted. In the kitchen, on

the table, was a newspaper, which Mrs. Wallace

had been reading. Also some sewing, which she

had been employed in. Therefore it would seem

that she had gone into the front room for some

special purpose. If it was for the purpose of

receiving a caller, then it must have been body

some-

with whom she was acquainted, or who had

legitimate business to discuss with her.

It was surmised that she had been struck, either

while seated in the chair, near which her body was

found, and then fallen over, or else while she was

in the act of lighting the gasfire. The mackintosh

was partly burnt, as though it had come into

contact with the fire. She had a bad cold, and it

was thought that she might have put the mackintosh

round her shoulders, and that when she fell the
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 187
mackintosh came against the flame of the fire.
up
These, of course, were mere conjectures.
Thus was accompHshed and discovered one of

the most baffling murders of modern " or for that

matter of any "

times. The body of Mrs. Wallace

was removed to the mortuary and the police took

charge of the case.

The first assumption was that the murder was

the work of burglars, who had broken into the

house and robbed it. The murder was a mere

"incident" in the task of obtaining spoil. The

burglars were supposed to have "silenced" the

only obstacle to the achievement of their desires.

But there were certain fundamental objections to
this theory. In the first place the house in which
the Wallaces lived was a small one, and not likely
to attract the ordinary professional cracksman,
and it is inconceivable that any but an ordinary
cracksman would have attempted such a "job".
In addition to this,the crime occurred early in the

evening, hours before burglaries usually occur.

Furthermore "
and this was an extremely difficult

objection to surmount "

there was not the slightest
sign of a forcible entry having been made. In

addition to these obstinate facts was the presence

of the Treasury notes in the vase upstairs,which
would certainly not have been left behind by
burglars. Nor would burglars, it would appear
safe to assume, have indulged in the elaborate

process of sending a bogus telephone message the

day before. They would probably have watched

 1 88 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Wallace away from the house "

having previously
made themselves acquainted with his movements

"
and then entered.

Evidently the police became impressed with these

peculiar facts, and carried on their investigations

accordingly. It is true that at first they entertained

the of
possibility a burglarious entry, and Detective

Superintendent Hubert Moore, who took charge

of the proceedings, telephoned from Anfield Road

Station to all inspectorsto detail men to all lodging-

houses, railway-stations and night cafes. Efforts

were also made to discover the weapon. Drains

were searched and spaces examined, but

open
without result.

It was pretty clear that whoever the murderer

was he must have been extensively splashed with

blood. Wallace was searched and closelyexamined

by the police, but not a trace of blood was found

on him. He also made a statement to the police,

in which he detailed his movements prior to and

subsequent to the murder. He said that he and

his wife had tea in the kitchen, where cups and

saucers were, in fact found, and that afterwards

he left to keep the appointment with his mysterious

messenger. The statement ended with the words,
"I have no suspicion of anyone".
Two days later, however, on the 22nd, Wallace

called at the Detective Office in Dale Street and

said, "I think I have some important information

for you". He then made a further statement, in

which he named certain individuals who might

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 1 89

have been concerned in the crime. The names of

these individuals were rightly suppressed. One of

them, however, was known as "Mr. P." He was

said at one time to have been employed by the

Prudential and, Wallace declared, had collected

premiums he had not paid in. Wallace further

stated that the insurance superintendent had told

"
him, Wallace, that the parents of Mr. P." had paid
about "2i^ in settlement of these defalcations. This

story^ was subsequently revised by an official of the

Prudential Company, who contradicted that part of it

connected with th*e "^^0 supposed to have been paid,

and said that a "certain sum" was merely offered.

Wallace also furnished further particularsabout

"Mr. P." to the effect that he had visited at his

house, was known by Mrs. Wallace, and that he

was familiar with his, Wallace's, movements and

habits as to collections and the keeping of money

in the house. He also cited another person who

had likewise worked for the and had

company
taken his, Wallace's, place for a time during an

illness he had had the previous December. This

individual also, suggested Wallace, had had

"financial with
irregularities" the company. Both

these men, explained Wallace, were well known to

Mrs. Wallace, who would have had no hesitation

in admitting either of them.

In addition to these names, Wallace supplied

those of many other business friends and ances
acquaint-
who would have been admitted without

hesitation by Mrs. Wallace, had they called.

igO MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Another incident, which impressed the poUce

very much, occurred as follows.

One day, after having been to the Dale Street

Detective Office, Wallace met the captain of his

Chess Club, a Mr. Beattie, who, it will be bered,

remem-

received the mysterious telephone message

for Wallace. The latter asked him to be more

definite as to the time the message was received,

at the same time remarking, "It is of great ance
import-
to me". The police said that they could not

understand why it should be of such importance

to him. He was asked by Superintendent Moore

why he considered it to be so important to him,

and Wallace's reply was, "I had an idea. We all

have ideas. It was indiscreet of me".

When one takes all these facts into consideration

one can scarcely be surprised that eventually the

police decided to arrest Wallace and charge him

with the murder of his wife. This event occurred

"
on February 2nd. Wallace's reply was, What can

I say to such a charge, of which I am absolutely

innocent?"
He was arrested by Superintendent Moore and

taken before the magistrates as usual. He was

eventually committed to take his trial at the

Liverpool Assizes. He protested his innocence all

through.
(*)
It must be admitted that the police had a difficult

case to build up, but they succeeded in doing it

with remarkable skill. Their arguments were

 192 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

inference being of course that he then had in templation

con-

the crime of which he was subsequently

charged.
In connection with the murder itself,they put
forward a very startling theory. The fact that

Wallace had not a trace of blood upon him seemed

a flat contradiction of his possible guilt, bearing

in mind the fact that the murderer must certainly
have been much bloodstained. The presence of the

mackintosh near the body supplied them with an

explanation, or what they considered to be an

explanation. Wallace, they contended, in order to

avoid becoming bloodstained, had stripped himself
naked and then donned the mackintosh, which

would have covered most of his body, leaving only

the lower part of his legs exposed. Any blood he

have got them he must have washed

may upon
off, afterwards dressing himself again. It was said

that he even have had a bath. It was certainly

may
rather unfortunate for this theory that no trace

of anybody having had a bath in the bathroom

upstairscould be discovered. The only towel found

there was quite dry. As this examination was made

soon after the murder was committed, had the

towel been in use it would certainly have been

wet then.

The police also laid stress upon the fact that

although Wallace, in the first instance, stated

definitely that he suspected nobody, he soon after,

as we have seen, made a further statement, in

which he supplied the names of a good many

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE I93

people whom he would to have suspected.

appear

Why had he altered his mind on this point so

completely and so quickly ?

Another factor which the police considered to be

of importance was the behaviour of Wallace

immediately after the crime was discovered. He

was described by several officers who were present

as being absolutely cool and indifferent, smoking
cigarettes and behaving generally not at all like

a man who had just discovered that his wife had

been brutally done to death. This, of course, is a

psychological point. All people do not behave alike

in the face of an emergency. Some are cool, while

others are greatly agitated. It is a matter of

temperament, apparently. A good deal has been

said and written about the mien of a prisoner in

the dock, in relation to guilt or innocence, but I

am afraid that the inference sometimes drawn

cannot be altogether relied upon. Nevertheless,

officials who have had long experience of studying
prisoners in the dock can generally and pretty
reliably "spot" an old hand, however much he

may strive to conceal the fact. By the same means

he would probably be enabled to discern the

presence of a first offender or even of an innocent

person. But there is no hard-and-fast rule one can

lay down on the question. That is to say, one

cannot argue that because the occupant of the

dock is calm and collected that he is necessarily

either innocent or guilty. He may be either. You

can argue on the one hand that calmness indicates

 194 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

consciousness of innocence, or that it means an old

hand is merely putting up an effective bit of

histrionic ability.And you might be right. So, too

much importance should not be attributed to the

behaviour of Wallace upon that occasion. It

resolves itself into a mere matter of opinion and

has not much evidential value.

The police, however, were on firmer ground

when they came to the return of Wallace to his

house and his discovery of the murder. When his

neighbour, Mr. Johnston, as will be recalled, saw

him he said that both back and front doors were

locked against him. Yet almost directly after he

opened the back door with ease. The lock of the

front door was known to have been out of order for

some time, and would occasionally "stick", which

would account for his not being able to open it.

The contention of the police was, of course, that

this show of being locked out of his house by

Wallace was done purposely to impress his bour
neigh-
with the burglary theory and in support of

his alibi.

Reverting to the message received over the

telephone. We have seen that the police tention

con-

was that Wallace sent this message himself

in order to create an alibi. But the gentleman

who received the message, the captain of the Chess

Club, Mr. Beattie, emphatically declared that the

voice of the speaker was not that of Wallace. In

event, a voice heard over the telephone has

any
not much evidential value, and in a serious charge
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 1 95

such as that of murder, would be very dangerous

to rely upon. It is true that one may recognise a

voice over the telephone, and it is equally true

that one be deceived about a voice heard over

may
the telephone. Supposing you know the speaker
well and are in the habit of listeningto his
very
voice over the telephone, you may be pretty
confident that you will know it. Yet, as I have

pointed out, you may be deceived. Voices differ

a good deal, people do not always speak in precisely

the same tone, or the telephone may be slightly
out of order and so distort the voice. Another

important point is that, as there are striking

similarities in faces and walks and human backs,
so there are, as it were, "doubles" in voices. So

that one might suppose that one is listeningto the

voice of a man one is acquainted with, to find

subsequently that it is,however, that of an entire

stranger, endowed with a similar voice to one's

friend. All of which emphasizes the danger of

accepting a voice over a telephone as evidence in a

trial for murder.

Unless, of course, it is strongly corroborated

with some other relevant and facts. And

proven
the police,in the Wallace case, sought to provide
this corroboration by producing evidence as to

the time Wallace left his home, which would fit

in with the supposition that he himself sent the

telephonic message. It would also confirm motive.

Here they found themselves against some nice
up
calculations. They had to rely the not
upon
igG MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

always reliable factor of time as testified to by

human agency. They produced a boy who swore

that he delivered milk, as already recorded, at

Wallace's house, and then saw Mrs. Wallace alive

at the hour of 6.30 on the evening of the murder.

This would enable the murder to have been

committed and Wallace to keep the appointment

"
made over the telephone by the mysterious Mr.

Qualtrough". If anybody saw Mrs. Wallace at a

later hour it would upset the case for the police,

or go a good way towards doing so. The defence

did, in fact, produce another witness, a boy who

delivered a newspaper at the house at a later time

and saw Mrs. Wallace. The police witness also

was induced, under cross-examination, to alter

slightlythe hour at which he said he was at the

house, putting it forward some minutes. Supposing

this evidence was reliable, the police case became

weakened and jeopardised thereby. The police

were also blamed for not themselves producing
this witness, in fact, were accused of purposely and

designedly keeping him in the background, ing

know-

that his evidence was in favour of the defence.

The police, in response, denied this, explaining

that they considered the witness they had called

sufficient for the purpose, and that they needed no

other to confirm their contention. Which seems a

reasonable explanation.
But unfortunately the important, and as I have

pointed out rather unreliable factor of time, as

dealt with through human agency, has many times

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE I97

before both confused and confounded the most

carefullyprepared case, on one side or the other.

It is sometimes as little reliable as is the evidence

of identification by memory of faces "
that prolific
producer of miscarriage of justice.
The above were the principal points in the case

for the prosecution, which, one must confess, was

far from being unassailable.

The trial was duly heard on Wednesday, April

22nd, 1 93 1, and three succeeding days, at the

Liverpool Assizes, before Mr. Justice Wright. The

case for the prosecution was entrusted to the

capable hands of Mr. E. G. Hemmerde, K.G.,

Recorder of Liverpool, who had with him Mr.
Leslie Walsh. The prisoner was most ably defended

by Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., who was accompanied

by Mr. S. Scholefield Allen. The case aroused

great interest, as may well be imagined, not only

locally but throughout the country. The
prisoner
was described as William Herbert Wallace, fifty-
two, an insurance agent, and he was charged with
the wilful murder of his wife, Julia. As is usual

nowadays, at these grim functions, there were

many women present in court.

I have already presented the outline of the case

for the prosecution, but I further to

propose
reproduce some portions of the speech for the

prosecution, and thus present to the reader some

of the forceful arguments of counsel in of

support
the police case.
Dealing with the incident of the receipt of the
 igS MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

telephonic message at the chess club, Mr. Hem-

merde said:

"This chess club is not a club that advertises.

It is a little club, and the meeting there would be

known only to a few members. You may think it

curious that a stranger to the prisoner, speaking

from a place 400 yards from his house, where,
according to him, he actually was at the time

(Wallace was supposed to have been at home

when the message was received at the club),

should have rung up the City Cafe. You would

have thought that he might have called at the

house, written to the house, or left a note there.

You will have to consider whether this giving of this

name and address was part of a cunningly-laid

scheme to create an alibi for the next night, or

whether it was a genuine message.

"One would imagine that a person knowing the

Menlove Avenue district,as the prisoner did, would

have an idea that Menlove Gardens would " as a

matter of fact they do off Menlove Avenue.

"

open
We are dealing with a man who was in the district

from time to time, having music lessons quite

near."

It should be explained that Wallace was at the

time taking music lessons in the district in which

the appointment was made and in which he failed

to discover the address named.

"You may think," continued counsel, "that

some of the ignorance developed by the prisoner

on this occasion was not genuine, but was assumed,
200 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

entry with his wife. As Mr. Johnston comes into

the entry he sees the prisoner going towards his

own entry door. The prisoner says to Mr. Johnston

"
remember he is only just home "
'Have you
'
heard anything unusual to-night ? Mr. Johnston
says, 'No, what has happened?' Wallace says,
'I have tried the back and front, and they are

locked against me'. Mr. Johnston suggested that

he should try again, and Wallace opened the yard

door, and went up to the kitchen door, and said,
'It opens now'. Then said Mr. Johnston, 'Look

round and I will wait'.

"Suppose you come to the conclusion that these

doors never were shut against him, that the front

door, which has an odd and troublesome lock, was

in the condition it had been in for a very long time,

and that the back door was open ? You then

come to the conclusion that the man who could

perfectly well get in if he wanted to, pretended

that he could not get in.
"Now follow Wallace's course about the house.

If you went into a house like that, where would

go if you left your wife downstairs ? Would

you
have looked in the downstairs room or gone
you
upstairs? It is clear that Wallace goes upstairs
and then comes down and goes into the sitting-
room at the front of the house. Then he finds his

wife dead on the floor. Her head was battered in

with "
apparently " one terrific blow, and then ten

others; eleven brutal blows. She had been dead

at least three hours."

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 201

Mr. Hemmcrdc then dealt with the incident of

the partly burnt mackintosh.

*'
Who had an interest in destroying that intosh
mack-

?" he asked. ''Assuming that someone had

broken into that house "

there is no trace at all

that anyone did "

and then killed this woman, it is

possible that such a person might have taken down

the raincoat and put it on to prevent the blood

getting upon his clothes, but, having done so, why

should a stranger to the house want to destroy the

mackintosh ? What concern would it be for a

man of criminal intention who came in and killed

this woman to destroy someone else's raincoat ?

"There is plenty of blood upon the coat, but

there was no blood whatever to be found on the

prisoner's clothes. Although there was blood in

the sitting-room and although the person who did

this clearly went upstairs immediately afterwards,

there is not the faintest trace of blood on the stairs.

The man who broke that woman's skull and killed

her, left her in a pool of blood, and got upstairs

without leaving the slightest trace, but in the

lavatory, in the pan of the water-closet, there was

a clot of blood "

the same blood, you will hear, as

the woman bled downstairs.

"There was in that room downstairs, and had

been for some time by the gas-stove, a sort of

iron poker, amply sufficient to have done this

deed. The day after this tragedy this poker was

gone."
(Mr. Hemmerde here held up a metal rod about
202 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

1 8 inches long, which, he said, was similar to the

poker referred to.)

"I would now draw your attention to the fact

that there is no blood whatever on the stairs,

because the Crown suggests to you that whoever

did this deed was taking elaborate precautions.

The history of our own criminal courts shows

what elaborate precautions people sometimes take.

One of the most famous criminal trials turned

on a man committing a crime when he was

naked.

"A man might very well commit a crime wearing

a raincoat, like one might wear a dressing-gown,
come down as he was just going to have a bath,
with nothing on which blood could fasten,
upon
and, with anything like care, he might get away

leaving the raincoat there, and perform the

necessary washing, if he were very careful. There

was hot and cold water in the kitchen, but whoever

did this deed did not take advantage of that fact.

He went upstairs and, as I suggest to you, went

with great caution."

Such were the main arguments contained in the

case for the Crown, as presented by Mr. Hemmerde.

A friend of Wallace's, of many years standing,

testified that Wallace was a placid, intellectual

man, varied in habits and studies, and never giving

any signs of violent temper. He was of a scientific

turn, and had a chemical laboratory in his back

bedroom. At one time he gave lectures on a

scientific subject at the Technical School, Byrom

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 2O3

Street. Tliis friend also declared that Wallace and

his wife were a happy couple.

These facts were, of course, brought out by-
counsel for the defence, Mr. Oliver, who strenuously
and emphatically challenged the assertions and

arguments of the prosecution. There can be no

doubt that he succeeded in shaking a good deal of

the evidence produced against his client. One of

the witnesses produced by the prosecution, and

whose evidence subsequently led to a good deal

of controversy, was the police surgeon. Professor

J. E. W. M'Fall. I shall reproduce some of his

evidence. He testified as follows:

"I arrived at the house at 9.50 on the night of

the murder. Mrs. Wallace's body lay face wards.

down-

The head was badly battered in on the

left side above and in front of the ear, where there

was a large open wound, approximately half an

inch by three inches, from which bone and brain

substance was protruding. At the back, on the

left of the head, there was a big depression of the

skull with several wounds. There was a large

patch of blood clot on the edge of the rug and

another large patch and a piece of bone by the

edge of the matting on which the head was

lying.
"The hands and lower arms were cold, but the

upper arms and body were warm. Rigor mortis

was present in the left arm and neck. The head

was fixed rigidly. I came to the conclusion that

death had taken place quite four hours before ten
204 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

o'clock. The margin of error could not possibly

be more than half an hour to an hour."

"Could you form a view where Mrs. Wallace

was when the blow was struck?" asked Mr.

Hemmerde.

"Yes," replied the witness, "in front of the

armchair by the fireplace. I think it is a little too

low to be standing. It suggests itself to my mind

that the person had been sittingon the chair with

her head slightlyforward turned to the left,as if

talking to someone. The wound in front of Mrs.

Wallace's head was the most severe, and, in my

opinion, was the first blow struck. All the blows

could be inflicted in less than half a minute, and

death would take place practically immediately

with the first blow. The other ten blows would

be struck when the head lay on the floor."

The witness agreed that a piece of metal like

that produced might have inflicted the injuries.

He did not think, however, that the mackintosh

found near the body had, as was suggested, been

thrown over her shoulders by Mrs. Wallace.

Dr. M'Fall made these observations as to the

demeanour of Wallace upon the occasion of his,

Dr. M'Fall's, visit to the house:

"I was very much struck with his demeanour.

It was abnormal. He was too quiet, too collected

for a person whose wife had been killed in that

way. He was not nearly so affected as I was

myself. He was smoking cigarettes most of the

time."
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 2O5

I have already made observations about this

part of the evidence. It is a matter of opinion,

and opinions will always differ on the point.
Professor MTall made this pregnant suggestion
concerning what he considered to be the mental

condition of the man who committed the deed :

"
I have seen of this kind, and know that
many
it is no ordinary case of assault or serious injury.
It is a case of frenzy."
This was tantamount to suggesting that the

prisoner committed the deed during an attack of

temporary insanity,which would, of course, fill up

the created by the absence of a motive. This

gap
brought Mr. Oliver to his feet with this sharp
retort :

"So, if this is the work of a maniac, and Wallace

is a sane man, he did not do it?"

To which Dr. MTall responded:

"He may be sane now."

But Mr. Oliver would not accept this solution,

and continued with determination:

"The fact that a man has been sane fifty-two

years, and has been sane while in custody for the

last three months, would rather tend to prove that

he has always been sane ?"

"Not necessarily,"persisted the witness, adding

these significantwords, which caused most people
to ponder deeply: "We know very little about the

private lives of people, or their thoughts."

It seemed pretty clear that the bloodstain on

one of the notes found upstairs, and that in the

206 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

lavatory, might have been made by the fingers of

the poUce during their investigations.At one time

the house was nearly full of police officials.

There appeared to be a good deal of uncertainty,

which was never definitelycleared as to how
up,
much money was on the premises at the time of

the murder. An official of the Prudential stated

that Wallace's collections might have been thing

any-
from jT'^o to ;^ioo. It depended the
upon
day of the week and as to whether certain premiums
fell due. The sum evidently varied a good deal.

When Wallace examined the cash-box he it

gave
as his opinion, will remember, that there were
you
only a few pounds missing, and he certainly
should have known. On the ground, just below

where the cash-box had stood on the top of the

cabinet, were several silver coins, as though they

had been dropped in the hurry of ransacking the

box.

In this connection it might be mentioned that

Wallace had over ^^150 to his credit at the bank,

which was his own and had no connection
money
with the money which he had collected for the

company. It went to that he was not in

prove
any way in want of funds. If the murder were

committed for robbery it seems uncertain how

much money the culprit managed to get away
with.

Superintendent Moore, in his evidence, stated

that Wallace wanted to sleep at the house on

the night of the murder but that he would not

208 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Mr. Oliver made a most vigorous and trenchant

speech in his opening for the defence. I shall quote

some of its most tellingpassages. He said:

"This case has been thrown at the jury. In

effect the Crown have said,

'
If he did not do it,
who did ? '
That is not the to approach it.
way
'
It should be asked,
'
Who is the man ? We know

something of Wallace now. He is fifty,a delicate,

mild liked by who knows him; a
man, everyone
man of considerable education, and refined, and,
as his diary showed (Wallace kept a diary, which
was found in the house), one with considerable

giftsof expression. That is the man charged with

this frightfulcrime.
"The question must ask is, 'Why?' There
you
is no suggestion of ill-feeling
between Wallace and

his wife. He has "1^2 in the bank. He had

nothing to gain, and there is no suggestion of any

other woman. If you are going to convict a man

for murder on the flimsiest circumstantial evidence,

can you possibly say why ?"

Counsel referred contemptuously to Professor

M'Fall and his theory as to "frenzy", which, he

declared, he had no right to have put forward.

"I have nothing to say against my learned

friend, Mr. Hemmerde, in this matter," he plained.

ex-

"The witness forced this theory upon

the court because he realised,as the police realised,
that this motiveless crime, alleged to have been

committed by a devoted husband, presented almost

insuperable problems. In fifty-twoyears no one

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 209

has ever suggested that the prisoner was not

perfectlysane. He has been under medical vision

super-
ever since his arrest, and I ask you to regard
dis-

Dr. MTall's statement.

"I suggest to you that this deed was not the

result of sudden fury. If the accused did this thing,

he calculated it all out at least twenty-four hours

before, for the prosecution's case stands or falls

on the authenticity of the telephone call twenty-

four hours before. It can be proved that this

perfectly normal man was behaving perfecdy

normally throughout January igth and 20th,
which means that, contemplating this frightful
crime, he was going about his daily business and

showing no signs of it !

"Let me say now that this is what is sometimes

called a police case. If there is one kind of crime

that is an abomination to the police, it is an solved

un-

murder. Everybody attacks them if they

cannot get a solution. They are apt to take a

biased view of the case, and pursue it relentlessly.

''Thus, because Constable Rothwell sees Wallace

with his hands to his eyes, he was 'ghastly' and

'wiping his eyes', thinking, of course, of the crime

he was going to commit that evening! I can call

as many witnesses as you want to hear to that

say
on the day of the murder there was nothing the

matter with Wallace at all."

I would like to introduce a few remarks here.

Counsel, I suggest, was rather unfair to the police.

It scarcely needs pointing out that it is much
any as
210 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

the business of the police to use their best endeavours

to prove their case against an accused person as it

is the business of counsel for the defence to get his

client off if he can, independent of whether he

believes in his client's innocence or guilt, as the

case may be. I venture to point out that Mr.

Oliver was also not fair to the police when he made

the observation about unsolved murders. When

the police have presented their case they have

fulfilled their duty. If the verdict against them

goes
it is not their fault. They have nothing to blame

or reproach themselves with about it. Of course

if the verdict confirms them it conveys a certain

amount of satisfaction,just as it does to counsel

when the verdict in his favour. I think

goes we

may allow that the police, under such stances,

circum-

are not unscrupulous, as counsel would

have us believe, but merely conscientious, as they
should be.

Therefore the police can scarcely be blamed for

putting forward the evidence of Constable Roth-

well, in spite of the fact "

and surely counsel should
have pointed this out "
that it conflicted with the
evidence given by other witnesses as to the prisoner's
remarkable calmness and indifference
after the murder
had been committed! Which how difficult
proves
it is to determine the evidential value of a person's
demeanour in an emergency.
Mr. Oliver continued:
"
Where is the evidence to support the suggestion
that Wallace sent the telephone to himself?
message
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 211

Three operators said it was a perfectly ordinary

man's voice, and Mr. Beattie, who had known

Wallace for well over eight years, said it would

require a great stretch of imagination to think the

voice was Wallace's. If he did not send that

message he is an innocent man, and how can you

say that the prosecution has even started to prove

that he sent it ? For two hours he played chess

wdth that message in his pocket, and won his game.

What do you think must have been going on in his

mind if that was his message, and the stepping-

stone to the murder of his wife ? What sort of

chess would he play ?

"It may occur to you that a man planning the

murder would avoid telephoning to Wallace when

Wallace himself might answer the call. If he had

watched Wallace away from his house on the 1 2th,

why did he not go in then and do the murder ?

One reason against it is that the watcher could not

be sure he had gone to the chess club. Another is

that there would be more money in the house on

the Tuesday evening.

"
If Wallace had, as alleged by the police, been
preparing an alibi, it would have been some

preparation to say that his wife would have let in

Qualtrough, or anyone else, had they called; but,

in actual fact,he had said that she would let no one

in unless she had known them personally. He also

said that he could not think of anyone who knew

he would be going to the club. These things speak
loudly against its being a concocted alibi."
212 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Mr. Oliver then proceeded to put what he termed

the "vital point in the case":

"
When was Mrs. Wallace last seen alive ? It is

common ground that Wallace must have left the

house within a minute or two of 6.45 p.m. If

he left at he almost certain to be

even 7.30 was

innocent, but if he left at time after 6.30 he

any
must be innocent.

*'In considering what the murderer had to do

between the crime and leaving the house, you must

remember that Wallace was searched the same

night, and there was no trace of blood on his

clothes, hands, face, or body; yet, according to

witnesses, he must have been heavily spotted with

blood. Before he left he must be absolutely clean.

His clothes could not be washed, but would have

to be got rid of. For the first time we now hear

the suggestion that Wallace was naked in a

mackintosh. If so, his hair, hands, and legs from

the knees down would be covered with blood. He

would have to have a bath and dress himself

There was no sign that had had a bath at

anyone
that time."

Other vital points in the evidence for the secution

pro-
Mr. Oliver dealt with as follows:

"The bar of iron which has been mentioned in

the case as being the probable weapon employed,

has not been found in the only piece of waste

ground on the prisoner'sway that night, or in any

drain. Where is it ? It would have taken time to

burn the mackintosh. If the witness, Close, is

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 213

right, W^allace had from 6.30 or some time later,

until about a quarter to seven, but I will call

three other witnesses on this point, against whom

not a word can be said. One of these says that

Close stated afterwards that he had seen Mrs.

Wallace alive at a quarter to seven when he

delivered the milk. When this came to the edge

knowl-

of the police it must have been a terrible

shock, for, if Close had delivered the milk at a

quarter to seven, this man is clear. The argument

of the delivered milk at 6.30 is, I suppose, that it

gives sufficient time for the crime to have been

committed. Close subsequently altered the time

to between 6.30 and a quarter to seven. That is

half-way between the truth and the police case.

"As to why the accused should act at all on a

message from an unknown person, I would remind

you that it was business in which he might draw

20 per cent commission. There is nothing fully

'dread-

suspicious' about his conversation with the

tramway man. Everything he did was perfectly

rational. There is no rag of evidence except police
suspicion.
"The defence has been wretchedly hampered by
the police withholding the names of witnesses

whom they were not calling. Are the police afraid

to help the defence ? There is no reason why these

people should not have been called except that

their evidence does not fit in with the police case.

The police have done everything to draw ropes in

front of this man to prevent facts coming out."

 214 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Again counsel was most unjust to the police.

I think it well be that the ultimate and
may very
surprising result of the trial was due not a little

to this unfair criticism of the police. Surely Mr.

Oliver does not that the police,in addition
suggest
to working on their own case, should also work

upon that of the defence ! There is nothing at all

unreasonable or out of order in the police refraining

from calling certain witnesses. Why should they
call a witness whose evidence would conflict with
their theory, and be hostile to the evidence of other
witnesses whom they do call ? How could a

prosecution be maintained on such lines ?

Mr. Oliver dealt with the evidence of the kintosh,
mac-

found near the body, in the following

manner :

"The police theory is that the murderer threw

it down when he had committed the crime. You
have photograph showing the mackintosh
a put as

if it had been so thrown down, but the police

superintendent has said that the photographer
must have caught his foot in it on his out.
way
That must have been after the photograph was

taken. Are impressed by this, or Mr. ston's

John-
you
statement that it was the sort of thing a

woman would throw over her shoulders when she

had a cold ? With regard to the burning, is it not

obvious that it was on her shoulder when she fell

and burnt her skirt on the fire ?"
gas
The skirt worn by Mrs. Wallace was burnt as

well as the mackintosh.

2l6 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

alone, as Mrs. Johnston says. If he has made a

sHp or two, remember the circumstances."

Wallace was then called. He made a good

witness, speaking distinctlyand calmly and vincingly.
con-

He said he had been married over

eighteen and would describe his relations

years
with his wife as "perfect". He corroborated his

counsel in all particulars,emphatically repudiating

the bare suggestion of murder.

Then Mr. Oliver put this direct question to his

client :

"I suppose I must put this question to you. I

think it follows from what you said. Did you lay a

hand your wife that night?"

upon
"I think," replied Wallace, "in going out of the

back door, I did what I often enough do; I just

patted her on the shoulder, and said, 'I won't be

longer than I can help.'"

any
"I don't mean that," responded counsel. "Did

you injure her in any way?"

"Oh, no, certainly not," replied Wallace.

Wallace confirmed the story told by the stons,

John-
and explained that his wife knew all about

the received from Mr. Qualtrough, and

message
advised him to as it might be worth his while.
go,
He further stated that he never made a decision

in a difficultywithout first consulting his wife.

Wallace thus explained the finding of the body:

"I could wife lying there on the floor.
see my

My first impression was that she was in a fit,but

that lasted only a fraction of a second. I stooped
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 217

down with a lighted match and saw the blood,

and saw that she was hit."

He further accounted for his calmness in these

words :

''I was really agitated but was trying to act as

coolly and calmly as possible, and was smoking

cigarettes for the sake of something to do. The

inaction was more than I could stand, and I had

to do something to avoid breaking down. I did

break down absolutely."

Wallace had to undergo a severe ation
cross-examin-

at the hands of Mr. Hemmerde. It transpired

that a superintendent of the Prudential, a Mr.

Crewe, lived in the district in which Menlove

Gardens was situated and was well acquainted

with the neighbourhood. Wallace, however, did

not state until quite late in the proceedings that he

had called there. Mr. Hemmerde examined him

on this vital point.

"I put it to you," said counsel, "that you never

said until to-day you called at Mr. Crewe's. Of

course you realise now the importance of the point

that you were quite near your superintendent, who

knew the district well, and yet you asked everybody

else instead of going to see him ?"

At this stage Mr. Oliver intervened to explain

that Mr. Crewe was out at the time.

"My learned friend does not see the point,"

responded Mr. Hemmerde. "Wallace did not

know he was out. He has never said until to-day

that he ever went to Mr. Crewe's."
2l8 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Counsel then turned to the question of the

of Prudential in the house, and

amount money
that the rather ^lo than
suggested average was

"2^, but to this Wallace would not agree.

Wallace stated that he knew his wife had
having
no enemies, counsel said:

the police the of

"Although you gave names

might have been admitted to

certain people who
the house, is there one you
have the slightest
suspicion of being guilty of this murder?"

"Not one," replied Wallace.

Then came the question of the telephone message.
said counsel, "as he
"Presumably," rang up
the City Cafe, he must have expected to be
you
there?"

"Possibly,"replied Wallace.
"An admirable opportunity for him to have

round to house only a few minutes

gone your
away?" insinuated counsel.

"Yes," agreed the witness.

"And wife left there alone?" continued
your
counsel.

"Yes," again responded the witness.

"Has left a for you

before at
anyone message
the City Cafe?" asked counsel, very impressively
and suggestively.
"No," replied Wallace, quietly and readily.
"Has left for you of that kind
a message
anyone
before?" persisted counsel.
"I have received
"No," replied Wallace. never

a like that before in my life."

message
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 219

"Of course," continued counsel, "Mr. Qual-

trough had no possible means of knowing that you
would receive it that night ?"

"That is so," agreed Wallace.

"Then he rang you up," commented counsel,

"at 7.20, and without knowing you would ever get
the or ever go to Menlove Gardens.
message

Apparently he was ready waiting for your departure

the next night ?"

"It looks like it," readily agreed Wallace.

"Did it ever occur to you," proceeded counsel

with emphasis, "that he would have to watch

both doors, front and back?"

Wallace hesitated just for a few moments and

then replied thoughtfully,

"No, it didn't."

"Had you any anxiety in leaving your wife that

night?" asked counsel.

"No," again came a monosyllabic reply from

the witness.

"Not only could he not know that you got his

message," continued counsel, "and that you would

go, but he could not have known that you would

not look up a directory and find there was no such

place."
"That is so," again agreed Wallace.

"Of course," explained counsel, "you could

have found out at once if you had looked the
up
directory ?"

"I could have done," was the almost indifferent

reply of the witness.

220 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"As a matter of fact," summed-up counsel,

"looking back upon events, doesn't it strike you
that all these inquiries as to the address were

absolutely unnecessary?"
"It didn't strike me at all," was Wallace's

uncompromising reply.
But he agreed with counsel directly after that

he might have rung Mr. Crewe at his office

up
during the day and found out where Menlove

Gardens East was.

As this mysterious telephonic message was

undoubtedly one of the most vital as well as the

most intriguing factors in the case, counsel was

evidently loath to leave it. So he continued:

"On the night of the cafe incident you were

making so much of the name Qualtrough on the

way back ?"

"I talked to a friend of mine about it, a Mr.

"
Caird," replied Wallace. It occurred to me it was

rather a peculiar name. I simply asked Mr. Caird

if he had heard of it. It was an entirelynew name

to me."

"Doesn't the whole thing strike you," said

counsel, "as very remarkable that he should ring

for business in another district and expect
you up
to there, and yet, without knowing whether
you go
had gone there or not, wait outside your
you
house for a chance to murder your wife ?"

"Yes, it is curious," agreed Wallace.

"
It would have been easy for him to give a right
address?" suggested counsel.
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 221

"He might have done," agreed the witness.

"A wrong address is essential to a course of

evidence for an alibi," was counsel's next pregnant

suggestion. Then after an impressive pause, "Do

you follow that ?"

"No, I do not follow you," was the witness's

quiet reply.
Mr. Hcmmerde then repeated the question
slowly and with emphasis, when Wallace indicated

that he appreciated the point.

One may fairlyterm this incident as dramatic.

There was profound silence in court during these

fateful interchanges, the atmosphere being tense.

"You told Police-constable Williams," continued

Mr. Hemmerde, "that when you could not find

Menlove Gardens East you became suspicious and

returned home?"

"I think so, yes," replied Wallace.

"Why did you become suspicious?" asked

counsel.
"
Seeing that I could not find either the man or

the place," replied Wallace, "I had an idea that

something was not quite right, and, seeing there

had been a burglary in our street fairlyrecently

and a number of tragedies there possibly eighteen
months or two years ago, I was rather inclined at

first to think that something of that sort might

have been attempted at house. But I did
my own

not become unduly upset."

Counsel now returned to the receipt of the

telephone message.
222 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"Didn't it occur to you," he asked, "that the

address might have been taken down wrongly on

the telephone ?"

"It occurred to me among other possibilities,"

said Wallace.

You became suspicious?" went on counsel.

I was uneasy," said Wallace.

When you reached home," said counsel, "you

expected to find your wife in, and a light in the

kitchen?"

"That was what one would expect to find,"

agreed Wallace.

The fatefiil dialogue was continued thus:

Counsel: Did it make you suspicious when you

found there was no light in the kitchen ?

Witness: Yes, I was still uneasy. I could not

understand why there should be no light in the

living kitchen.

Counsel: How were you able to see there was

no lightin the kitchen "

through the window of the

back-kitchen ?

Witness: Yes.

Counsel: Didn't Police-constable Williams say

"
to When you first came up the yard did you
you,
notice any lightshining through the curtains ?"

Witness: That is so.

Counsel: And you said, "The curtains would

prevent the light from escaping?"

Witness: Quite correct.

Counsel : There is a door separatingthe kitchen

224 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Witness: Not necessarily.

Counsel: I am not talking about "not arily".
necess-

I am talking about a woman with a cold

left nursing it in the kitchen. Wouldn't expect

you
her to have the door shut ?

Witness: She might possibly.

Counsel : I put it to you that when you say you
were made uneasy by seeing there was no light
in the kitchen, you were not in a position to see

whether there was or not ?

Witness: I submit I was.

Counsel: When were you looking through the

back kitchen window ?

Witness: After my first attempt to open the back

kitchen door.

Counsel : Before the Johnstons had seen you ?

Witness: Yes, before I went round to the front

door the second time.

Counsel : Is it the fact that when you could not

get in the first time looked through the window,

you
and that made you uneasy ?

Witness : I think that was the order of it.

Counsel: You said just now, in answer to Mr.

"
Oliver, When I could not get in I thought nothing.
When I knocked at the back door I thought she

might have gone to the post."

Witness: It is quite possible.
Counsel : Then were not uneasy then ?
you
Witness: I both and not uneasy, if
was uneasy

you can follow me. It was a very difficult position,

and I don't quite know exactly what I did think.
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 225

I thought she might have gone to the post or that

she might have upstairs. I did not know

gone
what to think.

Counsel : You were uneasy at the tram junction ?

Witness: Yes.

Counsel: You continued uneasy on your way

home.

Witness: I was not unduly alarmed.

Counsel: And you swear you were talking to

nobody outside ?

Witness: I do.

Counsel: I am putting it to you that you had

no reason whatever to be suspicious when you

returned home, before you knew ?

Witness : I knew what ?

Counsel : Exactly what had happened inside the

house ?

Witness : How could I know ?

Counsel: P.C. Williams says you told him your

wife accompanied you to the back door and waited

a little way down the entry with you. Did she do

that?

Witness: No.

Counsel : Did you say that ?

Witness: I don't think so.

Counsel: You heard Williams he bered

remem-
say
distinctlythat you said that, because he
wondered at the time if someone had slipped into
the house when her back was turned. You,
apparently, are not sure you did not say it ?
Witness: I am certain I did not, because my
226 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

wife would never come down the back entry with

me. We always parted at the back door. In my

opinion, this constable has misunderstood what I

said.

Counsel : When you found the back door would

not did that increase your uneasiness ?

open,
Witness: Yes. It made me feel things were not

quite right.
Counsel then turned his attention to the dition
con-

of the locks of the front and back doors at

the time. Wallace explained that they had

occasionally had trouble with the front door lock

for quite a long period, although they had never

had any in getting into

difficulty the house. Upon
this occasion, however, the key would not turn at

all. Although he thought at the time that the back

door was locked or bolted, he did not think so now.

He thought that the lock must have stuck, as it

had done on many occasions before.

Counsel took him up at this point.

Counsel: If the lock had often stuck, what

made you so uneasy ?

Witness: It was unusual for me to go to the

front door and find I could not open it, and then

round to the back door and find myself unable

go
to open it, or to get an answer to my knocking.
Naturally I was a bit uneasy.

Counsel: At the time you thought the back

door was locked ?

Witness: I think at the moment I rather had

that opinion.
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 227

I am presenting this evidence in full, for it was

of \dtal importance, which counsel evidently sidered

con-

it, as he persistedwith it at great length.

The cross-examination continued:

Counsel: When did cease to have that

you

opinion ?

Witness: I don't know.

Counsel: Let us be quite clear. The result of

investigation leaves now under the

your you

impression that the front door was locked and the

back door was stiff?

Witness: The front door was actually bolted.

Counsel: And the back door stiff?

Witness: Yes.

Counsel : Did you still believe that someone was

in the house ?

Witness: No.

Counsel : Did you ever believe it ?

Witness: I might have done at the moment.

Counsel then left that point and turned his

attention to the Wallace denied that he

weapon.
knew anything about the iron bar, which had been

referred to as having been in the house just before

the murder. Its presence in the house had been

testified to by a Mrs. Draper, who had formerly

been employed in the house as a kind of woman.
char-

This was in addition to the poker also

referred to. Wallace also denied that he assumed

that his wife had been struck with something. He

also said that she did not have fits,as had been

stated, but was subject to heart attacks.

228 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

The cross-examination continued:

Counsel : You have heard there was no evidence

of breaking in or of anything being taken except

the -"^ in the cash-box. Did the front bedroom

strike you as having been genuinely tumbled by

a thief or disarranged by an assassin ?

Witness: It did not strike me either way.

Counsel: Does it strike you as being at all

probable that man would remember to turn off

the gas before he went out ? (The gas in the room

where the body lay had been turned off.)

Witness : In view of the fact that the mackintosh

was burned, I should say yes.

Counsel: Does it not occur to you as strange
that a total stranger murdering your wife would
have troubled to turn off the gas ?

Witness : No, it is not very improbable. I expect

he would turn out the light,and see he had left

the fire on and turn it out too.

Counsel submitted that the theory of a thief was

contradicted by everything in the house. He then

turned to the incident of Wallace's questioning

Mr. Beattie as to the precise time the telephone
message was received.

"Why should you regard it," he asked the

witness, "as an indiscretion to press Mr. Beattie

about the time of the telephone message?"

"I felt,"replied Wallace, "as a suspected person,
that it was indiscreet to discuss a case with a man

who might be called to give evidence."

"Do you mean to suggest," said counsel, "that

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 220

you ever had the slightestfear of what the poUce

would find out ?"

"I had no fear whatever !" emphatically replied

Wallace.

''Then why should you worry about any cretion?"

indis-

persisted Mr. Hemmerde.

"Because I realised I was suspected," replied

Wallace, "and anything I said might be construed.
mis-

"Was a single thing ever said to you that you

were suspected?" continued counsel.

"Nothing was said," replied Wallace. "But I

realised I must have been followed."

Counsel then again returned to the question of

the doors.

"You are convinced," he said, "that the front

door was bolted when you came back, but the back

door was only stiff?"

"That is so," replied Wallace.

That concluded the cross-examination of Wallace.
His own counsel, Mr. Oliver, then put the following
curious question to him:

"Was it your habit to play the vioUn naked in

a mackintosh ?"

"No," repHed Wallace.

He then returned to the dock, having been in
the witness-box for three hours.
There was clearly a connection between this last

question of Mr. Oliver's and the theory of the

prosecution that the prisoner had murdered his

wife while naked for the mackintosh.
except
230 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

One might almost say, of course, there was a

difference between the medical experts, for there

usually is. The defence called Professor J. H.

Dible, Professor of Pathology at Liverpool sity,

Univer-

who disagreed with the expert evidence for the

prosecution as to the time of the murder as indicated

by the post-mortem condition of rigor mortis.

Whereupon the Judge commented:

"There seems to be a great difference of opinion

among the experts in this case."

To which Professor Dible replied:

"It is a notoriously difficult subject."
It is clearly not a fixed science. This difference

of opinion on the part of the defence would tend

to make it improbable, if not impossible, for the

prisoner to have committed the murder. The

testimony on both sides, pro and con, was equally

qualified and confident. Who is to decide when

doctors disagree ? In this instance the jury, of

course, and they did decide.

Another impression of Professor Dible was that

the assailant must have become spattered with

blood. The testimony on the other side, however,

was that he need not have been much bloodstained

if he were wearing the mackintosh "

only a little

on the lower portions of the legs.

Mr. Oliver dealt with the evidence of the police-
constable who said that he passed Wallace on the

afternoon of the murder and that he noticed he

looked pale and agitated. Counsel said that he

was prepared to call many people who would

232 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"I suppose," said Mr. Oliver, "it will be said

by the Recorder, 'What a cruel man!' On the

other hand, if he had been agitated the Recorder
'
no doubt would have said, Do you think that was

'
the demeanour of an innocent man ? Is there no

such thing as the calmness of innocence ? Did

you notice the way Wallace answered questions ?

Did you hear him fence once or prevaricate ? Did

you hear the frankness of his admissions?"

Mr. Oliver made this effective conclusion:

"The burden of proof in this case lies upon the

Crown. Here we have a case of a crime without

a motive, a man against whose character there is

no word to be said, a man whose affection for his

wife cannot be doubted, a man charged with the

murder of the woman who was his only companion.

The Romans had a maxim, which is as true to-day
as it was in the early days, that 'no one ever

suddenly became the basest of men'. How can

you conceive of a man with such antecedents as

those of the prisoner doing this thing ? It is not

enough for you to think it is possiblethat he did it"

not nearly enough."

Mr. Hemmerde followed with his final speech,
in which he again outlined the story for the secution,
pro-
reiterating and emphasizing his various

points. Dealing with the telephone call he said:

"
We have a man trying to ring up Wallace, who

had left his house at a time that might perfectly

well have brought him straightto the call-box from
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 233

which the was sent. It was a box that

message
Wallace had used. Whoever sent the message went

to a box where tliere was no lightexcept a reflected,

indirect light, and where anybody could perfectly
well telephone without drawing attention. Nobody
but Wallace knew that Wallace was going to be at

the cafe "

on Wallace's own story. The voice on

the telephone was confident and strong and inclined

to be gruff. If a was imitating another

person
person's voice might imagine he would do so
you
in a voice that had all those characteristics. If the

man had had important business and wanted to

speak to a man he did not know, would he not have

arranged to ring later, on finding Wallace was

up
not at the cafe, instead of leaving the message to

someone else ? According to the story for the

defence, Qualtrough must have taken all his steps

on the assumption that the message got home to

the man he wanted to move."

Counsel then dealt with Wallace's efforts to find

Menlove Gardens East:

"Do you think a man who was really searching

for that address," he said, "would have asked all

the questions and finally to a newsagent's

gone
after being told by the police there was no such

address ? When you hear the suggestion that the

murder might have been committed a considerable

time after Wallace left,you have to bear in mind
that the unknown man had chosen an address

so little distant away that Wallace might easily

have been back by eight o'clock. Do think
you
234 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

for a moment that the man would have run

that risk ?

"Having found that there was no such address,

why should Wallace declare that he became

suspicious? It was quite possible for a mistake to

have been made over the telephone."

Counsel then dealt with the actual scene of the

murder :

"The defence have suggested," he said, "that

the room in which Mrs. Wallace was found was

practically never used except when visitors came,

but actually it was used regularly whenever Mr.

and Mrs. Wallace had music. Supposing Wallace

did not tell his wife he was going out on the night
in question and that she prepared for a musical

evening the piano was and music on it

"

open "

and that she was struck down in that room, her

dress might have been burnt.

"I repudiate absolutely the suggestion that the

police have been coaching witnesses or suppressing

evidence. On all points there is ample evidence

to support the theory of the prosecution that the

man in the telephone-box was the prisoner, and

that Mrs. Wallace was last seen round about 6.30.

As regards the time of death, there was ample time

for Wallace to do everything. Never mind about

the clot of blood and other fine points. The

question is: Can believe would think

you anyone
of committing such a crime for the small gains in

an insurance agent's house ? Are you

satisfied

that prisoner's attitude was that of an innocent

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 235

man ? You can only convict the prisoner if you

are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that he is

guihy. If you do not think he is

guilty,it will be

your duty, of course, to acquit him, and I hope

that nothing that has fallen from me has led you
to anything to the contrary."
suppose
One must admit that this speech was a manifestly
fair one, and that Mr. Hemmerde did not strain

the case against the prisoner.

Then came Mr. Justice Wright's summing-up,
which occupied about an hour. As this is variably
in-

a vital stage of a trial for murder, I propose

to give the Judge's comments to the jury on this

perplexing case at length. In solemn and well-

balanced tones, Mr. Justice Wright summed up
the case as follows:

"I need not warn you," he

began, "to approach
the case without any preconceived notions. Your
business is to listen to the evidence and to consider
that and nothing else. This murder, I imagine,
must be almost unexampled in the annals of crime.
It committed time the
was some on evening of

January 20th, in a house in a populous hood,

neighbour-
and was so devised and arranged that not a
trace, as far as I can see, remained which would

point to anyone as the murderer.

"All the evidence is circumstantial, and a man

cannot be convicted of any crime, least of all that

of murder, merely probabiHties, unless
on they are

so strong as to amount to a reasonable certainty.

The question here is not 'Who did this murder?'
236 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

' '
but Did the prisoner do it ? or rather, has it been

proved to your reasonable satisfaction and beyond

all reasonable doubt that the prisoner did it ?
"The question of motive can be put on one side

as far as the accused is concerned. The evidence

is that to all Wallace and his wife
appearances
were living together in happiness and amity and
there was no pecuniary inducement that one can

see for the accused to have desired the death of

his wife. Is there reasonable presumption that

any
it was the accused who telephoned the to
message
the chess club ? On that point also the evidence

is purely circumstantial."

His lordship then dealt with the conversation

between Wallace and Mr. Beattie as to the time

of the telephone message :

"It is said," remarked the Judge, "that that was

the mark of an uneasy conscience, and that point

has been somewhat stressed. It may be, on the

other hand, if the prisoner was already feeling

himself to be the object of suspicion, he might
perfectly well have made these inquiriessimply to

impress upon Mr. Beattie the importance of being

accurate if any question should arise. It would,
one would imagine, be very dangerous to draw any
inference seriously adverse to the prisoner from

that conversation.

"You have heard some description of the crime

so far as it can be reconstructed. It was a crime

which apparently involved "

^because here we are

in the range of speculation "

this woman going into
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 237

the sitting-room and no doubt turning on the Hght

and Hghting the stove. No doubt the couple
generally lived in the kitchen, yet on occasion they
went into the sitting-room when they wanted to

have some music, and on occasion when visitors

came. Mrs. Wallace would take them into the

sitting-room and light the fire. There are two

theories " at least there were once "

as to how she

was struck. One of them was that she was sitting

in the armchair by the fireplace and was struck

down with a blow, and then, when she fell on the

floor, the remaining ten blows were administered.

That would mean that the assailant came to her

and attacked her in front, and, of course, on that

view, it is very difficult to believe that the assailant

was the husband wearing the mackintosh. If he

was going out there and then, one asks why should

he wear a mackintosh, and why should she light

a fire ? If she lighted a fire under the impression
that he was not going out, but that they were going
to have some music, why should he come in with

a mackintosh on ?

"It does that the more probable

appear now

reconstruction of the tragedy is that she was struck

down when stooping over the fire, or it may be

just when she had lighted it, and this is said for

two reasons "

the burning of the skirt and the

burning of the mackintosh. Mrs. Johnston, as soon

as she saw the mackintosh, said Mrs. Wallace

must have thrown it over her shoulders. Whether

she had any reason for thinking that is obscure.
238 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

The prisoner, so far as I can follow, never drew

Mrs. Johnston's attention to the fact that the

mackintosh was his, but he mentioned it to others,

including Williams and Moore, and thought there

was some doubt as to whether or not it was his.

One has to be careful not to over emphasise these

small difficulties in contradiction in considering the

position of this man whether he is innocent or

guilty. He had been through a great deal that

night, and when reference is made to small crepancie

dis-

in his statement I cannot help thinking

that it is wonderful his statements are so lucid and

apparently consistent as they haw "

been.

"Whoever did the murder "

the evidence seems

conclusive " must have been seriouslysplashed with

blood. It was a very bad wound and one of the

arteries in the forehead had been severed, and it

is quite obvious from the picture,and the graph

photo-
that there must have been splashes of blood
on the murderer. How, in the narie of Providence,

did the murderer go without leaving a trace

behind ? What time had the prisoner if he was

the murderer ? That is a most yital point in the

case. If you think, on the evidenc .
as to times, that

the times are so short, either to make it impossible

for the prisoner to have done this act or to make it

improbable, that would be a

very strong
very
element in your conclusion on the real question of

the case. It is for the prosecution to prove the facts

which are only consistent according to reasonable

methods of judgment to prove the guiltof the prisoner.

 240 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

killed. It may be that the evidence is consistent.

The criminal got into the house, committed the
murder and went away. So far as were
weapons
concerned, the prosecution had called Mrs. Draper,
who said that two things were missing " an iron bar
and a poker. If the prisoner committed the murder,
he could not have used both those but
weapons,
the question was, how did he get rid of them ? One
would have thought the tram conductor on the

car in which the prisoner travelled must have

noticed if he were carrying an iron bar or a poker,

but he did not seem to have seen anything of the

kind.

"Referring to what happened at the house, the

prosecution said that just as the prisoner had

faked the telephone and sought to

message
fake an alibi, so he faked the discovery of the

crime, and the prosecution relied for that on his

own story. You have to consider whether that

helped them to form a basis of decision. If the

prisoner had been wandering about for an hour

and a half seeking someone, and then found the

doors of his house did not open as readily as he

expected, it might well be he would lose his head

to some extent, and not act with the deliberation

and wisdom which criminals are always expected

to act when their proceedings are canvassed.

"Wallace told Police-constable Williams that

the front door was bolted. Williams said he did

not hear bolt drawn, but that was about all

any
he could say. Mrs. Johnston did not notice, one
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 24I

or the other. Prisoner said he at first thought

way
there was someone in the house, but that was only
a conjecture, and he now thought he was wrong.
If the door was boked, the question of the lock was

immaterial. On the other hand, if the lock was

there and the door was unbolted, then he ought to

have opened it. You will have to consider whether

attach importance to the fact that he

you any

appeared to fail to work a somewhat defective

lock though the defect might have been of old

standing.
"
Of course if Wallace was in a state of mental

disturbance, having been on a wild goose chase

and being rather worried because he could not

get in at once, that might account for some culty.

diffi-

On the other hand, the prosecution said,

'Nothing of the sort. He knew exactly what he

was doing and he was feigning a difficultythat did

not exist'.

"The question have to determine is not

you
'
'
Who can have done this ? Human nature is

very strange. You may have a man masquerading

as Qualtrough and sending the bogus messages, and

then, if he did not actually see the prisoner leave

the house he might knock at the door, and if Mrs.

Wallace had been told the prisoner was seeking

an interview with Qualtrough, he might be

admitted. If he were admitted he would soon find

out that the prisoner was not in the house. On the

other hand, if he had found he was in the house

he could go It is difficult to say what motive

away.
 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS
242

there could have been for such a thing. It is difficult

to think there can be such a person to devise all

these things, but, then again, there is the difficulty

of motive as far as the prisoner is concerned. It is

difficult to see how the man can have got away

leaving no trace, but there are equal difficulties

connected with the prisoner.

"However you regard the matter, the whole

crime is so devised
skilfully and so executed,
skilfully
and there is such an absence of a trace of anything
to incriminate anybody as to make it very difficult

to it is a matter entirelyfor you that it can

say " "

be brought home to anybody in particular. Can

it is absolutely impossible that there was

you say
an unknown murderer who has covered up his

traces ? But putting that aside as not being the

real question, can you say, "

^taking the evidence

as a whole and bearing in mind the strength of

the case put forward by the police and by

the prosecution "
^that you are satisfied beyond
reasonable doubt that it was the hand of the

prisoner and no other hand that murdered this

woman ?
"
If you are not satisfied,whatever your feelings
may be, whatever your surmise or suspicion or

prejudice may be, if it is not established to your

reasonable satisfaction as a matter of legal evidence
and legal proof, then it is your duty to find the

prisoner not guilty. Of course, if you are so satisfied,

it is equally your duty to find him guilty,but you
have to be satisfied by legal evidence in this court
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 243

and by legal proof. Whatever you may think

generally, that is the acid test which you must

apply in coming to your verdict."

Thus ended his lordship's most interesting

summing-up, which was listened to by everybody
in court with rapt attention. Then came the

most trydng and psychological period of a trial for

murder, namely, the retirement of the jury for the

consideration of their verdict. Between that

moment and that of their return is a painful time

for concerned, most of all, one would

everyone

imagine, for the prisoner at the bar. But Wallace

did not seem to have lost his strangely consistent

imperturbability when, after the absence from the

court of an hour, during which time the jury were

absorbed in the task of deciding his fate, as to

whether he should live or die, he reappeared in

the dock to hear his fate. That fate did not seem

in doubt to all those who regarded the faces of the

jurymen as they filed back to their places: They

were very grave, as they invariably are when their

decision is adverse to the prisoner.

In reply to the usual question, the foreman
"

pronounce the verdict of Guilty". It was received

by a veritable gasp in court, clearlyproving that it

was unexpected by the majority of those present.

The prisoner, however, did not budge nor blench,
and when asked if he had anything to say why
sentence of death should not be passed, quietly
replied, "I am not guilty. I don't want to say

anything else". Then the Judge, assuming the

244 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

black cap and in solemn tones, in which there

might be traced a slight quaver, observed:

"William Herbert Wallace, the jury, after a very

careful hearing, have found you guilty of the

murder of your wife. For the crime of murder, by

the law of this country, there is only one sentence,
and that sentence I now pass upon you."
By this time Canon Dwelly, the High Sheriff's

chaplain, had moved along the bench and stood

beside the Judge. Then followed the dread words

"
of the death sentence, finishing with May the

Lord have mercy on your soul." To which the

chaplain responded with "Amen."

During this ordeal Wallace stood with his hands

clasped behind him, looking steadfastlyat the Judge

as sentence was pronounced. A most absorbing
"situation". Not once, not even at this vital and

terrible moment in his prolonged ordeal, did that

inexplicable and masterful composure desert the

prisoner. No more baffling human enigma ever

stood in the dock. When the warders who stood

around him gently tapped him on the shoulder,

indicating that the tribunal was ended and that

he should now quit the dock, he turned and silently

walked down the stairs, disappearing from view

and leaving the whole court at gaze and lost in

wonder and amazement, not untinged with pity.

Thus ended this notable trial,one of the most

notable, it is safe to say, ever heard in this country,

particularly in view of the remarkable sequel

which followed shortly after.
 GLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 245

It now falls to be considered as to why the jury,

in face of the summing-up of the Judge, which, as

can be plainly seen, was most favourable towards

the prisoner, brought in their adverse verdict after

only one hour's consideration. The case simply

teemed with difficulties for them. They did not

give the prisoner the benefit of any of the doubts

with which the case was beset and in spite of the

Judge's clear implication that they should do so.

This is the more remarkable as, in nine cases out

of ten, the Judge's summing-up is invariably the

basis of a jury's verdict. That is to say, a jury is

invariably much influenced and guided in their

decision by what the Judge says in his final summing-

I have always found that it is very difficult
up.
to say definitelyhow a case of the kind is going
until the Judge sums up. Then you may be pretty
sure.

You cannot realise the influence a Judge has

on a jury by merely readinga report of his speech.

Mere words do not convey a full and complete
impression of the Judge's attitude. To obtain this

you must be in court and observe his lordship's

gestures, emphases, facial play, intonation of

voice, and so on. However impartial a Judge

may be "
and our Judges, I need scarcely point
out, are always manifestly and studiouslyimpartial
"
he cannot altogether eliminate his own personal
opinion. After all, he is only human. Nothing
could have been fairer than Mr. Justice Wright's
summing-up in this case, but still you could clearly
246 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

perceive,by reading between the lines, as it were,

that he was not himself satisfied that the prosecution

had made out their case. It will be noticed that,
in passing sentence, he made no observation as to

whether he approved of the sentence or not, which

a Judge sometimes does. Clear indication of his

uncertainty of mind in the matter.

Why, then, did the jury convict ? What influences

operated as factors to convince them that the

prisoner was guilty ? I think there were several.

One of them, I venture to believe, was the rather

severe and manifestly unfair criticism of the police

by counsel for the defence. Even the Judge took

the cudgels in their defence. This kind of

up
captious complaining often defeats its own object.
It convinced the jury that the police case was so

strong that the defence were afraid of it. Hence

the abuse. The defence of the police by the Judge

also confirmed them in this supposition. Another

factor was, in my opinion, the cross-examination of

Wallace by Mr. Hemmerde. It was most telling

and obviously made a deep impression on the

minds of the jury, which, not even the wise and

cautious words of the Judge could eradicate. I

believe also that the strangely unassailable posure

com-

of the prisoner made an unfavourable

impression them. Lastly, the jury were faced

upon
with this challenging problem: If Wallace did

not commit the murder, who did ? And their

minds failed to the idea that anybody else

grasp
could have committed it. So they adopted the
248 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

burglar entered the place, or, as the Judge pointed

out, of the manner of his retreat. His motive, of

course, would be theft. He took, we will say, the

money from the cash-box "

^4 "
^but left the notes

in the room upstairs. A very singular thing for a

burglar to do. He certainlywould not fail to have

gone upstairs. Nothing else was missing.

Now let us regard the burglary, or supposed
burglary, in relation to the murder. The theory
is that the burglar encountered Mrs. Wallace, and

struck her down in order that he might make his

get-away. The first blow that was struck was a

very severe one, and not only rendered the victim

unconscious but practicallykilled her. Since this

would have enabled the burglar to get away

without interference, why did he remain behind

and occupy precious moments in delivering the

other quite unnecessary ten blows ? It will thus

be seen that this also was a very singular thing for

a burglar to do. Also, and presuming that the

burglar was the individual who sent the telephone

message, he must have known sufficient of Wallace's

home affairs to be aware that, although he had

removed Wallace there was still Mrs. Wallace in

the house and that he would have to deal with her.

Is it probable that a burglar, under such stances,

circum-

would have gone into the house and mitted

com-

such a desperate deed for such a small

sum of money as was likely to be found there ? In

the highest degree improbable. It is a rare thing

nowadays for burglars to commit murder, or even
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 249

acts of violence short of murder, rather do they

avoid such a thing. It is true that we still have

what are technically known as "shooting burglars"

"
like the late Steinie Morrison "
^but they are

rather scarce, and would certainly not "operate"

in such houses as those where Wallace lived.

Thus the theory or possibility of a burglar

having committed the murder must be dismissed

from our consideration, as the police also obviously

dismissed it from their consideration quite early in

their investigations.
Let us now consider the vital question of motive,
which the prosecution were chided for not having
put forward. It need scarcely be pointed out,
since the fact is now common knowledge, that the

prosecution are not called upon to provide a motive.

If they can, by means of proven facts, make the

guilt of the accused appear convincingly obvious,

they have discharged their legal duty. They have,
in fact, fulfilled their mission in merely presenting
these facts. They are in no way legallyconcerned
with motive. Of course, if they can also show

what the motive was it tends to strengthen their

case. But it does not necessarilyweaken it if they

do not do so. So that it is no fault of the police
that they did not insist upon a motive.

Supposing for the moment that the case for the

prosecution were true, what motive could Wallace

have had for the commission of such a deed ? It

is admittedly difficult to find one, and as we know,
the police failed to find one. It could not have
250 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

been a financial motive, for Wallace was quite

comfortably off. He would gain nothing by the

death of his wife, and it is to be presumed that she

was not insured for any considerable sum since no

mention was made of it by either side during the

run of the case. So we must rule out financial

motive from the case, with the exception of the

improbable one of the burglar.

There was, however, a fugitivekind of mention

of "another woman". We know that from time

to time murders have been committed for the

possession, the unfettered possession, of a much

desired woman. It has been rather ally

melodramatic-

called the "eternal triangle", that is to say

two women and one man, or two men and one

woman, and one has to be "removed". I repeat

such cases have been known, but I have never

heard of a case of the kind where some evidence

was not forthcoming as to the existence of the other

woman. In this case there is not the shadow of a

clue as to the existence of any other woman. So

we must dismiss that also from our consideration.

What other possible motives are there ? Well,

the one which leaps most readily to the mind is

that of revenge. Was the murder committed by

someone who had a spite against either Wallace

or his wife ? And in this connection we must take

this further point into consideration: Was the

murder committed by a woman ? It may be

doubted whether a woman could be capable of

inflictingsuch very severe injuries,which would

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 25I

to be the result of the display of more

appear
strength than is usually possessed by women. But

this I think, like many other familiar ideas ing

concern-

the female sex, is a fallacy. A woman, under

the influence of strong passion, and with such a

as was available and was clearly used, was

weapon

capable of inflictingvery severe injuries,quite as

severe as those which battered out the life of Mrs.

Wallace.

In this connection it was stated, more than once

if my memory is not at fault,that Mrs. Wallace

"had not an enemy in the world". This is such a

familiar phrase as to be made use of glibly and

without much thought. It requires only a little

reflection to appreciate how inaccurate this must

be. Just think of it. A human being with not a

single enemy in the world ! I doubt if such a thing

could be said of the angels in heaven. It must be

obvious that there can be very few human beings

without enemies, open and avowed, or secret and

subtle. Such loose and delusive ideas as these

gradually creep into our everyday conversation.

They have very little evidential value.

No doubt both Mr. and Mrs. Wallace were well

known and much respected in the neighbourhood

where they lived. They were and had been for a

long time on very amicable relations with one

another. They had many genuine friends, but

that neither had any enemies is rather too much

to suppose. So the factor of revenge must be taken

into consideration. But as to who bore this feeling

 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS
252

of animosity against either or both of them, and

what was the cause of the enmity, one is unable,

in the entire absence of any clue, to even hint at.

But that "an enemy hath done this", seems to be

well to the fore among the probabilities.

In due course an appeal was lodged on behalf of

Wallace, who, in the meantime, was being held

for execution. The appeal was duly heard at the

High Courts in London on May 1 8th, and occupied

two days. There were three judges: Mr. Justice
Branson, Lord Hewart (Lord Chief Justice of

England), and Mr. Justice Hawke. The counsel

in the appeal were the same as at the trial.

In the meantime the result of the trial had

raised much controversy, the verdict being very

unpopular, especially in the neighbourhood of

Liverpool. So strong was the feeling against the

verdict in fact that intercessory prayers were

offered up on the prisoner's behalf in Liverpool

Cathedral. Commenting on this unusual ceeding,

pro-
the Bishop of Liverpool said: "I agree
with the criticism that the prayers were unusual.

So also were the circumstances. I think the

confidence of a large section of the public, in the

administration of justice through juries, has been

shaken by this case, and it is exceedingly important

that it should be restored. We expressed no opinion
in the as to whether Wallace was actually
prayers
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 253

guilty, but we met a feeling that the verdict was

not justifiedby the evidence given at the trial.

That is why I allowed the prayers. In my view,

it is the duty of the Church to meet and turn

into public anxiety of this kind. I should

prayer
hope that the Church will always be alive to

its duty of watching public events and giving,

without prejudice, the opportunity for public
intercession."

Opinions will doubtless differ as to the wisdom

or justificationfor such ecclesiastical intercession.

But it was one of the many remarkable incidents

which attended a very remarkable case.

If it were possible for the dramatic istics

character-

of the trial at Liverpool to be exceeded it

occurred at the appeal at the High Courts in

London. It was intensely dramatic. Both counsel

pressed their respective points with sincerity,Mr.

Oliver, perhaps, being rather more emphatic and

insistent than his learned friend, Mr. Hemmerde.

In the dock stood a tall, grey-haired, pale-faced

man, wearing gold-rimmed spectacles. It was

Wallace, upon whose face were clearly depicted

the shattering effects of the ordeal he was passing
through. For some moments he stood with his

hands clasped behind his back, when he was told

by the Lord Chief Justice that he might sit down.

He then relapsed wearily into a chair, leaned

forward and listened attentively to the arguments

of counsel. He was, of course, accompanied by
warders.
254 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Mr. Hemmerde put the case for the Crown in a

virile speech which occupied four hours to dehver.

This, of course, followed the speech of Mr. Oliver

on behalf of the appeal, the grounds of which were

that evidence did not justify the verdict. "The

main ground," said Mr. Oliver, "is this: That a

man who well be quite innocent has been

may
convicted of murder and sentenced to death."

He further argued that the case should have been

withdrawn from the jury at the Liverpool Assizes.

He pointed out that there was no admission of any

sort and no material to assist the prosecution

obtained from the prisoner in the witness-box.

Counsel emphasised the facts of the perfectly

affectionate relations which existed between Wallace

and his wife and insisted that there was no blance

sem-

of a motive for the murder so far as his

client was concerned.

Mr. Oliver returned to his attack upon the police,

reiteratingthe charges against them which he had

made in the lower court. These strictures drew

from Mr. Justice Branson the observation: "I was

wondering whether we were trying this case or the

Liverpool police". In this connection Mr. merde

Hem-

said:

"If this case was pressed, I pressed it,and I take

full responsibility for everything that was done in

the case. The police had nothing to do with the

conduct of the case. We heard expressions in one
speech at the trial that the police had goaded a
milk-boy to put his time up, that they had coached
 256 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

bilities. It is clear that the murderer, whoever he

was, went upstairs and made some show of

disturbance in the front room."

Then counsel declared that Wallace had ample

time in which to clean himself after the murder.

"There is the question of the time taken for

dressing," remarked Lord Hewart. "Would not

appellant have to take off his clothes as well as put

them on again?"
"Not as I visualise it," replied counsel.
"At any rate your theory," said Mr. Justice
Hawke, "involves that the appellant would have
"

.
to put on his clothes ?
"
I shall not shirk any issue,"said Mr. Hemmerde.
"I pointed out at the beginning that this case was

an extremely difficult one."

Counsel went on to argue that not only was

there a case upon which the jury might convict,

but an extremely strong case. Otherwise, it would

mean that if a man were clever enough to telephone

from a dark spot when no one was about and do a

thing like this,he would be absolutelysafe,because

whatever he did afterwards was merely arguing
back to the fact that he was in the telephone-box."
It was clear that this telephone message exercised

the minds of the Judges very much, and that they

were not at all satisfied about it.

Mr. Hemmerde had with him an iron bar

similar to that which was missing and which it was

contended might have been the weapon employed.

He drew an impressive verbal picture of the
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 257

sitting-room, with the stage set, as it were, for a

musical evening, with music on the piano and the

gas fire ht. In this description Wallace seemed

very much interested. He leaned forward and

closely followed every word of counsel, and also

seemed almost fascinated by the appearance of the

iron bar, which counsel waved about as he spoke.

Mr. Hemmerde reiterated his argument as to

the murderer having carefully prepared for the

deed, that he was naked with the exception of the

mackintosh, and that he had plenty of time in which

to have removed the little blood which might have

got on to his feet. Wallace, he pointed out, had not

been arrested until February. This drew from Mr.

Oliver the observation that Wallace had been fully
care-

searched for traces of blood on the same night.

"I do not think I am saying anything wrong,"
responded Mr. Hemmerde. "As a matter of fact

he was not undressed that night, was he ?"

"He was carefullysearched," replied Mr. Oliver.

"I suggest that he came downstairs," continued
Mr. Hemmerde, "and surprised his wife. The

story is far more probable than that someone got

into the house on some pretence that night and,
having got in, killed this unfortunate woman."
Next counsel dwelt upon the inaccuracies tained
con-

in Wallace's statements, when Mr. Justice

Branson observed:

"Assume that he was innocent and that he left

his wife and went off on this wild-goose chase to

Menlove Gardens East, and he came back and

258 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

was shocked to find that his wife had been murdered

in his absence,isit to be wondered at that he should
not be certain whether his wife came with him to
the back door before he left or whether she came

down the entry." "I should think every detail,"

said counsel,"would be quiteclear in his mind,
bearingin mind the fact that it was the nighthis
wife had been murdered."
Mr. Hemmerde also dwelt at length upon the
prisoner's answers and demeanour generallyto-
wards

the Johnstons,arguing that he did not

exhibit any particular alarm. He also touched

upon the incident of the ownershipof the mack-

intosh,
how the prisoner hesitated about admitting
that it was his when he must have known that it
belonged to him, which drew from Mr. Justice
Hawke the observation:
" ' '
If theykept on askingyou Is this your coat ?
' ' "
mightyou not say, If there is a patchit is mine ?
Then Lord Hewart asked:
"Do you mean that the appellantrepudiated
havingsaid that the mackintosh was his ?"
"That is what the suggested,"
inspector replied
Mr. Hemmerde.
To which Lord Hewart replied:
"Ah!"
"And I am inclined to associate myselfwith it,"
said Mr. Hemmerde.
Said Mr. JusticeBranson :

"It appears that if he had alreadyadmitted that

the mackintosh was his,he was only checkingit
 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 259

by saying that if it had two patches in it it was his.

The two patches were there."

"Suppose the two patches had been burned,"

repHed Mr. Hemmerde, "much of it had been

burned!"

Mr. Hemmerde then observed that there was an

extraordinary reluctance to-day on the part of

juries to convict, but, with all consideration of the

facts,they had done so here.

With that remark Mr. Hemmerde sat down.

Mr. Oliver added a few words more:

"Putting the case as it seems to me fairly,"he

said, "grappling with everything, there remain

here a number of suspicious circumstances, but

nothing in the nature of proof"

Which seems rather a good and succinct summary
of this very strange case.

Thus the case had been argued and and

pro con,
there was nothing more but to await the decision

of the Judges. A profound hush fell upon the

assembly. You might have heard the proverbial

pin fall. What would the Judges do was the

unspoken question of all present. Was the prisoner

to live or die ? All eyes were directed towards the

three dignified and scarlet-robed figures on the

bench, who were conferring together. At last they

announced that they would retire for a few minutes,
rose to their feet and disappeared behind the
curtains at the back. Then ensued a period of

painful suspense. It lasted for forty-fiveminutes,

when the Judges returned, looking very grave.
26o MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

One's heart took an extra beat, when one reahsed

that this might indicate the worst. The prisoner,

looking even more hvid than before, stood with

hands clasped behind him and passing his tongue

spasmodically over his parched lips.
Lord Hewart began his speech very slowly and

very quietly,yet he spoke with precision and quite

clearly.
"It would not have been at all surprising," he
said, "if the trial had resulted in an acquittal,for
the case is one of eminent difficultyand doubt.

But we are not concerned with suspicion,however

grave, or with theories, however ingenious. There

is not so far as we can see any ground for any

imputation upon the fairness of the police. The

conclusion at which we have arrived is that the

case against the appellant,which we have anxiously

considered and discussed, was not proved with that

certainty which is necessary in order to justify a

verdict of guilty. The result will be that the appeal
will be allowed and this conviction quashed."
Although half expected, the decision came as

an extraordinary surprise. Such a thing had not

happened for twenty years! Only twice had it

occurred since the Criminal Court of Appeal was

established. It meant that Wallace was once more

a free man. The effect upon him of the decision

was magical. At first he looked bewildered, then

his face lit up with a smile and he murmured,

"Splendid!" His brother sat in the well of the

court, and to him he nodded delightedly,a saluta-

 CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 261

tion which was heartily reciprocated. Verily this

man had passed through the valley of the shadow

of death! Happily very few human beings arc

called to endure such a terrible ordeal.

upon
There was no demonstration in court, although,
of course, there was plenty of excitement exhibited

on all hands.

About a quarter of an hour later Wallace,

dressed in a bowler hat and an overcoat and smoking
a cigarette,emerged from the court and was met

by a few friends. Among the latter was Mr. E. T.

Palmer, Labour M.P. for Greenwich and secretary

of the Trade Union of which Wallace is a member.
The latter was carrying a small parcel of his

belongings, and expressed his intention of getting

a cup of tea. He left in a taxi. But before departing
he made one or two pregnant observations to

pressingand anxious inquirers.He said,for instance,

"I don't think I have any feelings left. I felt a

little shaky when the Judge started delivering

judgment. I didn't know what was going to

happen." And this was the feeling of most people

who were present in court.

The defence of Wallace cost a good deal of

money, more than he was in a position to find

himself He, however, received valuable assistance
from the Prudential, his brother, and I believe his
Union. It was also said that the Prudential were

keeping his berth open for him. The case was

mentioned in the House of Commons, the Home

Secretary being questioned as to the probability of

262 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Wallace being compensated.The replywas that

there was no likelihood of this happening,as there
was no reason for awarding compensationunder
the circumstances. Although it may appear hard
on the accused,yet one can realise the truth of the
Home Secretary's assertion. It does not appear to
"
come under the heading of miscarriages of justice
".
The decision of the Appeal Court merely means
that, in the opinion of the judges,the evidence
adduced at the Assize Court did not justify the

conviction,and therefore the verdict is set aside.

The position would have been much the same had
the jury at the Assize Court disagreed.
Here is an interesting list of "leadingdates" in
this strange case, as published by the News-Chronicle,
and which presentsthe story of the case in tabloid,
as it were:

Jan. 19 "
Message left at club for Mr. W. H.
Wallace, to
meet an unknown man the
followingnight.
Jan. 20 " Wallace seen in distressed condition during
afternoon by constable. Mrs. Wallace last seen

alive at 6.30p.m. Crime discovered by husband at

8.30p.m. Mrs. Wallace's dead body in front room,

after husband has found message to be a fake.

Jan. 21 " Search commenced for "Mr. Qual trough", who

sent the telephonemessage.

Jan. 22 " Allnight search for weapon.

Jan. 23 "

Inquest opened.
Jan. 24 " Taximan tells of a "highly agitatedfare" at

7 p.m. on the night of the murder.

Jan. 25 " Burial of victim.

Feb. 2 " Mr. Wallace arrested and charged with murder.
Feb. 3 " Declares his innocence to magistrates.
Feb. 19 "
Hearing resumed.

X !
 X

THE DEAD DRIVER

( The Case of Samuel Fell Wilson^ Warsop,

September, 1930.)

While cycling along a lonely road, outside the

mining village of Warsop, about five miles from

Mansfield, in the early hours of Tuesday, September

23rd, P.C. Holland saw a motor car, without
1930,

lights, drawn by the roadside. He pulled and

up up

made an investigation. He called to the driver, but

reply. He then opened the door at the side

got no

and found a man seated on the driver's seat dead.

He had evidently been shot through the head and

shoulder.

Subsequent inquiry fixed the identity of the dead

man as Samuel Fell Wilson, a provision merchant

of Sherwood Road, Warsop. He had left Warsop

the previous day for Clipstone, a mining village
four miles for the of getting orders
away, purpose
and collecting By an examination of a
money.

memorandum book which was found in his pocket

it was ascertained that he had collected well over

/^20. Only about "6 was found on him. It seemed

clear then that it was a case of murder for robbery.

The local police communicated with Scotland

264
 THE DEAD DRIVER 265

Yard, and Chief Inspector Berrett, well-known in

connection with the Kennedy and Brown case, was

dispatched to take charge of the investigation. He

had with him as an assistant, Sergeant Harris, and

the London officers worked in touch with Colonel

Lemon, Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire and

Superintendent Neate, in charge of the area where

the murder was committed. They had frequent

conferences at Mansfield Police Station.

The provision shop at Warsop was owned by

the murdered man's father. Clues of various kinds

came into possessionof the police,and a good deal

of interviewing was done by them and statements

taken, as usually happens on such occasions. One

man whom the police questioned said that he saw

two flashes in the distance and saw two men

running across a field near where the murder was

committed. Another story was connected with a

man who was seen to hide something under the

bushes about a quarter of a mile from the spot

where the car was found. He was seen to pull his

cap over his eyes, and disappeared into the ness.

dark-

Unfortunately, however, the police failed to

find any parcel, although they thoroughly searched

the bushes.

The scene of the crime was formerly part of

Sherwood Forest, famous for the legendary exploits
of bold Robin Hood and his merry men. This fact,
however, although lending an element of romance

to the venue, did not assist in clearing the

up

mystery. For mystery it was and still remains. The

266 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

from which the fatal shots were fired was

weapon
never found, ahhough diUgent search was made for

it by the poHce and their many assistants. They

even went to the extent of cutting down the growth
under-

around the spot in the hope of finding

something. The weapon was thought to be a

double-barrelled gun. One strange feature of the

crime was that there were but few pelletmarks on

the side of the car, which, by the way, was a motor

van.

A Mr. Parke, of Warsop, said he cycled past the

stationary van about 9.40 on the previous night.
He flashed his lamp on it but saw nobody on the

driver's seat.

The shots that killed Mr. Wilson were apparently

heard by several people, who took little notice of

them, thinking that they were merely shots fired

by farmers or poachers. The police theory was

that the murderer signalled to Mr. Wilson to stop,

then jumped on the running-board and shot Wilson

at close quarters while the car was slowing down.

The second shot was apparently fired in the face

of Mr. Wilson, who fell from the driving wheel.

The murderer then hastily took what money he

could find, switched off the engine, put out the

lights and made off. Careful examination of the

hand brake, the door and other parts of the vehicle
for the appearance of finger-prints
was not attended

with success. The father of the dead man was

astonished at the crime, as he said that he knew of

no enemies his son had or of anybody who could

 THE DEAD DRIVER 267
have done such a terrible thing. "I shall not rest

until his murderer has been brought to book!" he

declared.

The inquest was opened by Mr. S. G. Warburton

in the local mission room the following day.

"I propose to call only formal evidence of

identification," said Mr. Warburton, "and such

evidence as is necessary to show the cause of death,

and then I propose to adjourn the inquest to a

later date. I think you will have little in

difficulty
finding that this man was brutally murdered."

In spite of the fact that no finger-printswere

found on the car. Inspector Cherril and Sergeant
O'Brien, of Scotland Yard's Finger-print Depart-
ment,
took photographs of some marks which were

found on the engine-switch, the hand brake and

the Hght switch. This was done with a view to

determining whether the murderer or his victim

put on the brake and stopped the engine.

It was not an unusual thing for shots to be heard

about that spot, but since the tragedy, it was said,

no shots had been heard. The spot where the car

was found was the quietest part of the road, and

screened on either side. The murderer was believed

to be a man who had an intimate knowledge of

Mr. Wilson's movements. The last people to see

him alive were Mr. and Mrs. Charles Reynolds,

of Forest Road, Clipstone. Wilson had been in

the habit of calling upon them every Monday

night for the last three or four years. He was

usually pretty punctual, varying very little " not

268 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

more than a quarter of an hour "

in his hour of

arrival. He was there on the Monday night in

question, arriving at 8.30. He stayed twenty

minutes and then said, "I must be going on. I

have only one call to make, at Mr. White's, the

ice-cream dealer, and then I shall soon be home

again." He never reached Mr. White's house.

About two hundred yards from it he met his death.

He passed the spot where he was killed about the

same time he was in the habit of passing, a fact

which was doubtless known to his assailant, who

had laid his plans accordingly.
Mr. Wilson had previously called upon Mr. and

Mrs. Gould, of Clipstone, and they said he had

a bag of copper and one of silver, which he was

in the habit of keeping in the outside pockets of

his jacket. He was so carrying them on the Monday

night.
The car was taken to Mansfield Police Station

and carefullyguarded. Microscopical examination

of the pelletsand grains of powder found on the

side of the car was made. From this it was believed

that the gun was probably one owned by a poacher.

The cartridges were what are known as "poacher
treated". That is to say that a certain number of

pellets had been extracted from the cartridges.

There were plenty of poachers about that part, and
on the night of the murder several of these were

known to be out.

Inspector Berrett took a private room in the

village and there he interviewed many people.

 THE DEAD DRIVER 269
One man said he saw a car in Forest Road on the

night of tlie murder about ten o'clock. He himself

was in a car, and by the light from his own lamps

head-

he saw a man inside the other car, with one

hand on the wheel, and leaning to the left of the

car. Tliis must have been Mr. Wilson's car. Mr.

Wilson was then dead, and the man with his hand

on the wheel must have been his murderer,

probably half concealing himself while the other

car passed. The informant said that there were

two friends in the car and that everything was all

right.
Clues, more or less vague, continued to reach

the police, but unfortunately, they led only to a

loose end. The proprietors of two inns in the

district said that they had both changed a Treasury

note for a customer on the Saturday following the
crime on which was a bloodstain. Unfortunately
this discovery led to nothing practical.
Inspector Berrett, skilful detective as he is,
was unable to clear up this mystery. Since as

I have before stated, there is no "statute of

limitations" in connection with crime tion,

investiga-
the callous and brutal murderer of Mr.

Wilson may yet be found and punished. It is not

a very difficult case to define or classify.It was

clearly murder for robbery, as most murders are

in some form or other. There is not the slightest

indication that anybody bore the dead man any
grudge or had any grievance against him. times
Some-

this does happen and the robbery which

270 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

accompanies the murder is designed to act as a "red

herring" to lead the poHce off the scent. But in

this case it was not so. Mr. Wilson was a prosaic

tradesman, carrying on his business in a successful

and systematic manner. In fact, it have been

may
his self-disciplinaryhabits which suggested
very
the crime to the culprit. He must have become

acquainted with Mr. Wilson's habits, although he

may himself have been quite unknown to Mr.

Wilson. He carefully watched him, knew precisely

how he was in the habit of making calls for the

purpose of doing business and collecting money,

which was invariably in cash. He made himself

familiar with the route usually and faithfully

followed by his intended victim, planted himself

in ambush at the most retired and sequestered part

of that route, and as Mr. Wilson was driving past,
suddenly appeared and held him up. He may
have made some sort of excuse for so doing at first,
asked some commonplace question, and then,
having got into a favourable position for the mission
com-

of the deed, proceeded to swiftlyand ively

effect-

carry it into execution, making a clean

"get-away" afterwards.

A murder committed under such circumstances

invariably offers a difficult problem for police

solution. The isolation of it constitutes a serious
very
obstacle to free investigation. However, let us hope
that at long last the murderer of the luckless Mr.

Wilson may be brought to judgment.