Murder most mysterious

I

MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

I

Author of

C.IJ3.

MURDER BY PERSONS UNKNOWN

POLICE ENCYCLOP/i:DIA

THE STORY OF CRIME

ORIENTAL CRIME

THE INDIAN CRIMINAL

WOMAN AND CRIME

THE PENCE MYSTERY

BURKE AND HARE

PRITCHARD THE POISONER

THE MYSTERY OF THE RED BARN

THE TRAGIC BRIDES

TRIUMPHS OF DETECTION

DR. LAWSON

GEORGE CHAPMAN ETC.

•yv-/ I

A\^^CbrTi

MURDER MOST
MYSTERIOUS

BY

HARGRAVE LEE ADAM

^

I

LONDON
SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON & CO., LTD.

^„„»T nnlTAIN BY PURNELL AND SONS

"O, that we might read the mind of a murderer!"

FOREWORD

In the ensuing pages I have dealt with a 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 settle-
ment 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 my previous work, CJ.D., I am reminded
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 very much surprised, although not at all
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 upon to "emit a
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 any shape, and
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 examina-
tion 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 misunder-
stood 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 correspond-
ent 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 justified in 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 con-
nection with it except to uphold it.

I think this should remove all doubt or mis-
understanding 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 Metro-
politan 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 my book I also made reference, quoting Sir
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 prosecu-
tions, '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 justifiably be 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 one of that ilk, I shall say
no more about it. Also there is no need to "shoot"
the police, as they are doing their best.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

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

CHAPTER

IX. The Clue of the Telephone Message

(The Case of William Herbert Wallace,
Liverpool, January, 1931.)

X. The Dead Driver ....

(The Case of Samuel Fell Wilson, Warsop,
September, 1930.)

PAGE

264

I

MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

(

I

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 Adminis-
tration 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
years, occasionally going on circuit, as it were,
or as it was called there, "on tour". The nearest
medical man to Bekwai was resident at Kumasi.
Needless to explain that it was very hot there, so hot,
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 necessarily excessive
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 con-
dition, 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 employ-
ment of Dr. Knowles about three weeks only. His
position was that of "steward boy". He had
previously served the lunch, and after lunch had
gone into the town, returning for tea by a train
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 out-
side 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 apolo-
gised 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 specialist named 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 suffering from 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 hus-
band's 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
hospital at 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 sitting in 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 Com-
missioner, which was situated quite near, and out-
side 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, how-
ever, 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
any holster. He unloaded the revolver, and found
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.

THE PISTOL SHOT 7

Dr. Gush realised at once that the wound was a
serious one, that, in fact, it was almost impossible
that Mrs. Knowles could recover. So serious was
her condition that it was deemed advisable to take a
declaration from her, and on the 23rd, in the
presence of the police and Dr. Knowles, the following
declaration was obtained from the patient, being
sworn on a Bible:

"There was a revolver standing or lying on a
bookcase. It had been cleaned. I took it up and
put it on the table near the bed. The boy came
with the afternoon tea. I put the revolver carelessly
on the chair, near the bed. I took a cup of tea,
sitting on the chair. I sat on the gun. As I got up
it caught in my dress with a lace frill. I tried to take
it away from the lace, and suddenly it went off, the
bullet passing through my leg. I did not realise I
was shot until I saw blood running from my leg. I
am not in fear of death."

It was signed by Mrs. Knowles and witnessed by
Mr. E. A. Burner, District Commissioner for
Ashanti, who asked Dr. Knowles if he wished to put
any questions. Dr. Knowles replied that he did not.

Mr. Burner also issued the following attestations :
"I certify that this statement contains accurately
the whole of the statement made by Harriet Louise
Knowles, given to me in the Colonial Hospital,
Kumasi, on the 22nd day of October, 1928. My
reason for taking this statement is that I have reason

8 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

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

"I hereby certify that statement was given to me
on oath in the presence of Dr. B. Knowles and Major
Smith, A.C.P."

Mrs. Knowles died shortly after, 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 ostensi-
bly 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 cup-
board. Between the dressing-table and 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 con-
nected 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 danger-
ous 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, instructing one 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 blood-
stained.

"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 sitting on 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 blood-
stained 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 procure the warrant for arrest. While he was
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 jurisdiction of this Court, did use a certain fire-
arm, 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 of his irresponsible mental
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 Com-
missioner, 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 state-
ment 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 bunga-
low at Bekwai was conducted by Major Smith, who
was accompanied by Assistant Commissioner of

14 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Police, Mr. Simmons, and Mr. Morris. Superin-
tendent 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 open. In the dressing-room Smith
noticed a wardrobe, which had clothes in it. He
noticed a hole in it, with a crack which ran up and
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 assisting in 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 straight line 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-

THE PISTOL SHOT I5

mately to the same position as the hole in the
mosquito net would have been if the net were drawn
down. All the others — Mr. Morris, Mr. Simmons
and Superintendent Afful — witnessed this test.

The inference to be drawn was obvious. Some-
body— presumably the prisoner, Dr. Knowles — was
lying on the bed, and fired his revolver at Mrs.
Knowles, the bullet passing through her body, the
table and the wardrobe, making the holes in its
flight which were discovered. At first this sounds
reasonable, even convincing. A very interesting,
not to say ingenious theory. But it was subsequently
proved to be quite fallacious. The police had to
admit that the bullet, having passed through the
body of Mrs. Knowles, who was a big woman,
would certainly not have force enough left to also
penetrate the table and wardrobe, which was
situated some distance away. A human body has
great stopping power with a bullet, and by the time
the bullet had emerged from the body of Mrs.
Knowles there was very little impetus left in it.

Then the police shifted their ground a bit and
argued that there were two shots fired, although
there was no witness who was prepared to swear
that he heard more than one shot on that occasion.
Strangely enough the police at length succeeded in
finding a second bullet in the bungalow, and this
discovery seemed to confirm their second theory.
Unfortunately for them, however, this second bullet
was accounted for in a quite rational and convincing
manner. Some time before the death of Mrs.

l6 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

♦Knowles, that lady, who was subject to occasional
fits of irritability and 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 possession of by the police.
These included a chair, on the legs of which were
small spots of blood.

The position now 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 up the case against him. The life of
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 hysterical utterances 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 Commis-
sioner's Court in the Eastern Province of Ashanti,
which was held at Kumasi, on November 13, 1928,
before His Honour Frank John James Foster Mc-
Dowell, 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 definitely laid 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 may or may not be a
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, you have the extraordinary situation of
the prosecution of a trial for murder being con-
ducted by the police who bring the charge, and the
onus of defence being placed upon the shoulders of
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 upon salient and interesting
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 effectively with 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 my care for twenty-
four hours. Do you think that, under the circum-
stances, 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?"

"Frightfully hot," replied Mangin, "you can feel
the walls hot when you touch them."

"It is too hot to sleep in pyjamas in the after-
noon?" suggested Knowles.

"Yes," agreed the Commissioner, "I myself only
use a towel."

The object of these questions was, of course, to
prove that the appearance of Dr. Knowles in 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 telling the 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 emphati-
cally 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, especially if 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 fright-
fully 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 up and he
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 observa-
tions about the prejudice and untruthfulness of the

THE PISTOL SHOT 23

"boy" Sampson, whom he did not engage but who
was taken on by his wife. In reference to the mos-
quito net, he said that it had been in use about
seven months, had never been taken down to be
washed, and that in addition to the hole that had
been pointed out, it had innumerable other holes.
He also commented on the two bullets which were
found by the police.

He was cross-examined by the Commissioner of
Police. I give a portion of the interrogatory.

Counsel: Why does it matter if the police found
two bullets or one ?

Knowles : Because there was only one shot fired
and no evidence of more than one wound.

Counsel : Can you account for the second bullet ?

Knowles: It was to my mind the bullet that
went through my wife, and the one in the wardrobe
had been there for months.

Counsel: So the clothes in the wardrobe had
not been moved for months ?

Knowles: Mrs. Knowles was careless about
housekeeping. It is quite possible the bottom layers
had been there for months. We did not go out
much.

Counsel: Sampson said they were taken out
regularly ?

Knowles: They were never taken out regularly.
Sampson had only been three weeks with me.

Counsel: You say you didn't want to engage
Sampson ?

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 spite of your wishes to the contrary ?

Knowles: Exactly. I was doubtful if his testi-
monials 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 suffer-
ing from drink and drugs.

Counsel: I understand that your wife used to
beat you ?

Knowles: Sometimes when hysterical and after
a silly argument. 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 may have. I never wore sock
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 prove that Dr. Knowles had some real grievance
against his wife and a motive for killing her.
Counsel pointed out that he had said that he had
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 was the boy who picked up the bullets. He
hated me. He rushed off to the police and has since
helped the police. He has said that I shouted ' Show
me' before the shot. That is a lie. It was after the
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 one, and Dr. Knowles stood it well, and

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 carefully traversed the evidence
which had been given for the prosecution, practi-
cally telling the 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 generous woman to save
her husband from the consequences of a crime."

His lordship's comments 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 manifesta-
tions 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 unfavour-
able 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 hysterical person 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 bed-
stead 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's guilt. 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
up. Although, as his lordship says, the evidence is
"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 vehem-
ently 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 you be taken to a place to be hereafter
appointed by the Governor and that there you be
hanged by the neck until you are dead. And may
the Lord have mercy upon your soul."

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, 1929, and cold. A cheerful fire burned
in a capacious grate just behind 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 remark-
able 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 satisfy Lord 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 any evidence of a plot?" asked Lord
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 silly thing as the defence had
stated she did, by sitting on the weapon, and so on.

THE PISTOL SHOT 3I

Then said Mr. Pritt, commenting on this.

**But women do silly things, even when not
drunk."

This observation seemed to amuse their lordships,
who all indulged in a broad and sage grin.

Then Mr. Pritt quoted this passage from the
evidence :

"If his evidence is correct, she had twice fired off
a revolver past him to frighten him, and had bitten
his ear on at least two occasions. He had showed
bruises inflicted by her, and as he put it, 'she used
to think an Indian club was sufficient to stop an
argument'."

This concluded the reading of the evidence, or,
as one may put it, the case for the defence. Mr.
Pritt's place at the reading-desk was then taken by
the Attorney-General, Sir William Jowett, K.G.,
who represented the prosecution. He then pro-
ceeded to argue from the point of view of the
prosecution.

''Who fired the shot ?" he asked in a quiet tone
and without any attempt at emphasis or rhetoric.
"Has it, or has it not, been proved that it was fired
by Dr. Knowles?"

"With intent to murder ?" inquired Lord Atkin.

"With intent to murder," replied Sir William.

Counsel then repeated the salient and most vital
parts of the evidence advanced by the prosecution,
pointing out the importance of the incident of the
violent quarrel between Dr. Knowles and his wife,
the threat uttered by Dr. Knowles that he would

D

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 con-
sideration. 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 re-
volver could not possibly have 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 necessarily have 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 con-
cerned I should like your lordships not to be too
strictly bound 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, how-
ever, 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
away from one gate while Dr. Knowles was being
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 circum-
stantial 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 slightest inquiry into whether,
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 possibility of 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 con-
sider 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 among cases of
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, irresponsible life. The almost
inevitable — certainly pardonable — 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 pre-
carious 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 tragedy itself, enacted 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 pro-
ceedings which, from first to last, do not seem to
have included the bare possibility of the accused's
innocence, but were directed avidly and of single
purpose to the effective running to earth of their
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 possibility of 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 professional and 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 cere-
mony cannot unfortunately be accounted to either
an acute sense of justice or mercy on the part of those
nearest and officially concerned. It would seem,
rather, that, after mature and temperate considera-
tion, 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 legal powers 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 purpose of making one or two
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

THE SILENT HOUR 39

pictures with her. The brother, however, was
unable to accompany her, so she went alone. That
was the last her parents saw of her that day.

Miss Steele was aged nineteen and was a very
steady, well-behaved girl, and much respected and
valued by her employer. She did not return as was
expected on the Thursday evening to the house
in Lee Road. As time went on and she was still
absent Miss Andrews became uneasy. When eleven
o'clock came and Miss Steele did not appear, Miss
Andrews became thoroughly alarmed. So much so,
in fact, that she went to the local police and reported
the matter.

Miss Steele was away all night. She had not
been to her parents' house at Plumstead. What
had become of her ?

That question was destined shortly to be answered
in a very tragic manner.

Shortly before eight o'clock on the following
Friday morning, a lamplighter, employed by the
South Metropolitan Gas Company, named Leslie
Hall, was walking across Blackheath, from Pond
Road, in order to put out the lights in Shooters
Hill Road, when he saw something lying on the
path. It was then light and the weather was still
wet and windy. In fact it was pouring with rain.
Time became an important factor in this dis-
covery. Hall had started his round at 6.30. It
took him about an hour and a half to extinguish
all the lights. He had just crossed the Princess of
Wales Road when he saw the object on the

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 dis-
covered 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 Superin-
tendent 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 pur-
pose. 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 photo-
graphs of the body where it lay, it was removed
to the Greenwich mortuary. The murder was one
of a perfectly frantic description, for the unfor-
tunate girl's clothes 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. Some-
body 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 up to the passer-by in an

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-grey one, and
voice rather coarse."

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

The police appealed 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
description of 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's employer, 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 Wednes-
day 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 likely that she would
return at once to the house. She had to fetch some
syrup of senna from the chemist's. If she got it
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 Superin-
tendent 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
Spilsbury was 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 examina-
tion 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 superficial wounds,
which had the appearance of having been inflicted
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

THE SILENT HOUR 47

no cuts upon them. Around the upper edge of the
neck of the dress a length of tape, about half an
inch wide, had been sewn. This had been drawn
tightly round the neck. Sir Bernard summed up
to the effect that death had been caused by asphyxia,
due to strangulation.

"And that would be produced by ?" queried the
coroner.

"By the strictures of the band pressing upon
the front and sides of the neck," replied Sir
Bernard.

"Does the depression on the neck," asked the
coroner, "correspond very closely with the tape of
the dress ?"

"Yes, fairly closely," replied Sir Bernard. "In
my opinion the girl was attacked from behind and
the neck of the dress was drawn forcibly backwards,
while counter pressure was made on the back of
the head and neck."

"Would she be able to cry out?" said the
coroner.

"No," replied Sir Bernard, "not after the
pressure had been made. She would probably lose
consciousness in a few seconds, so that she could
offer no effectual resistance. Probably the pressure
was released before death took place. Most of the
other injuries were inflicted during life. The
injuries to the nose and to the lip, also the right
cheek, may all have been caused by a single kick,
while the girl was on the ground. A kick may also
have caused the other injuries and bruises. From

48 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

the fact that there was blood upon the ground, it
seems pretty certain that the injuries were 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 pressure would produce
unconsciousness in a very short time, and death
would ensue within five or ten minutes. It would
not make much difference if the pressure were
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 acquaint-
ances 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's left 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 slightest doubt."

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 gone most
completely into the past of this girl. Sir Bernard
Spilsbury has told you that she was a pure girl.
Whenever anything happens to a young girl like
this, gossip is very likely to draw a wrong inference,
and it is as well that you should have these facts
before you. Both her mistresses had a very high
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 con-
nection 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 intelligence and 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
gone again! It is really very disturbing, and
reminds one of the distant past, when London,
particularly outer London, was a place of insecurity
and peril, and where after dark one had to walk
with cautious step.

The main difficulty with 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 investiga-
tions, 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 medi-
cine. 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 girl would 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 some-
body. 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
any way. He was just a friend of the girl's, but
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 way towards the shops, only to find them
shut. There does not appear to have been any

THE SILENT HOUR 55

allusion made to this possibility. It was certainly
rather late for suburban shops to be open in the
middle of the week. Shops close much earlier
now than they used to do before the war. It is
true that finding the shop closed, she might have
knocked, but there is no evidence that she did.
Certainly there is no evidence that she did not go
as far as the shops. Well, supposing she found
them closed, and that she was therefore unable to
procure the articles she wanted, she turned her
steps towards the heath, with the intention of
taking that stroll which she was in the habit of
doing. Since she knew she need not get in before
ten there was no need for her to hurry. Even if
she got back by nine, she still had plenty of time
before her. So she proceeded slowly and at her
leisure.

The heath is an extensive place and it would
occupy a considerable time to go far round or
across it. Thus it might very well be that it was
getting towards nine before the girl met with her
assailant, or was suddenly attacked by him. He
may have been dogging her footsteps for some time,
waiting for a favourable opportunity to attack.
This he might have done without alarming her by
walking on the turf and under cover of the darkness
of the night. It does not appear that the precise
hour of the murder was fixed. The nearest that
the police were able to get to it was through the
medium of the clerk, who undoubtedly saw the
body. But this does not fix the exact moment of

56 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

the killing, which may have occurred some time
before. So that the time between the girl's call 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's movements 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 girl during that period, they would
have been able to carry on their investigations
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
likely to 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-
penetrable. 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 move-
ments became enshrouded in mystery and there is

THE SILENT HOUR 57

no accounting for them, provided, I repeat, you
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 hap-
pened to take her on to the heath without first
calling at the shops ? The most likely explanation
is the meeting with somebody that she knew. But
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 93 1, a young girl named Ivy Godden
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 away. Suspicion soon fixed 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 was, however, convicted and
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, 1930, a little girl named Ellen Marvell,
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 way which people do.

"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 injuries were 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 con-
siderable 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
slightest clue 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

THE STILL TONGUE 63

found that her money was practically intact. So
robbery was not the motive of the murder. What,
then, was the motive ? Here are the different brief
statements or observations made by Miss Wren at
the hospital in the presence of the police, who
waited patiendy and anxiously all the time for
her to supply them with some clue to work upon: —

"He tried to borrow ^^lo."

*'I don't know why he should have come into
the shop, then."

"Is the litde black bag safe ?"

This bag was one which Miss Wren was in the
habit of carrying about with her, and to which
she seemed to attach considerable importance. It
was thought that she might have kept large sums
of money in it, but this was merely a conjecture.
The bag was found and taken possession of by the
police. It apparently held nothing of importance.
Just before she expired, and having been warned
that her end was near. Miss Wren made this
pregnant observation:

"You say I am dying. Well, that means I am
going home. Let him live in his sins."

Here was an intriguing, not to say exasperating,
mystery for you! How disappointed the police
must have been. The dying woman obviously
knew who her murderer was, but for some reason
or other, determined to keep a still tongue about
it and so allow the culprit to go unpunished.
What was the motive of this very mysterious
murder ?

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 may still exist in the minds of the public to
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 com-
municate with me at once."

As usual under such circumstances, the police
were called upon to interview many people in the
matter, and to receive various statements. A young
woman, for instance, called at the police station
and said she saw a man, whose description she gave,
loitering near 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 persons are traced they prove to have
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 culprit in making his get-away. Time is a most
important factor in such an investigation, and
every hour, even every minute, that elapses between
discovery and arrest automatically increases the
difficulty of 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 sub-
mitted 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-station and 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 dis-
appointing.

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 up as she went along. It was also recorded
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 move-
ments of Miss Wren on the day of the murder,
walked into the shop, assumed certain poses and
sat in Miss Wren's chair. All the while the police
were actively employed 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 gag her. Church Road 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 she possessed.

An interesting fact which came to light during
the investigations was that the deceased lady
belonged to a family which was distantly connected
with that of Sir Christopher Wren, and that of
Admiral Wren, a naval officer of generations ago,
whose portrait hung 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
pathologist placed 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 enlight-
ening 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 say, it
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 up-
stairs the police found that two drawers were taken
from a cupboard and searched, the contents being
strewn on the floor. This recalls the incident in
the murder of an old woman in Scotland, of which
the unfortunate man Oscar Slater was wrongly
convicted. These two cases are strangely similar
in their main features. In the Scotch case the
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. Un-
fortunately, 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 under-
standing.

On the drawers which the police took possession
of were found some finger-prints. These were
carefully preserved and subsequently photographed.
But here again the clue unfortunately proved to
be useless. They could not compare them with
any other finger-prints. There were no other
prints like them in their archives, which proved
that the culprit, whoever he was, had not been
through the hands of the police. Thus finger-
prints, invaluable clues as they are under other
circumstances, become futile in such a case as this.

THE STILL TONGUE 7I

Time passed and in spite of the strenuous efforts
made by the poUce — both Scotland Yard and the
local police, who worked together on the case —
the chance of taking the culprit seemed more
remote than ever. Surmising that the assassin
must inevitably have been extensively blood-
stained, the police addressed a request to dyers
and cleaners to let them know if they had been
called upon to clean any bloodstained garments
lately. They also appealed for information about
persons seen near Miss Wren's shop on the day of
the murder between the hours of 3.30 and 6.30.
But the response to these appeals was practically
nil. The police conjectured that the man, after
entering the shop, must have gone into the room
behind. Then ensued a quarrel with Miss Wren,
words led to blows and the man hit her on the head
with the tongs, rushed upstairs and ransacked the
drawers in search of something which, however,
he could not find. He then came downstairs again,
found Miss Wren still alive and tried to strangle
her with his hands. Then, believing her to be
dead, he left the premises.

Later on a curious story about the past of Miss
Wren and her deceased sister was discovered by
the police in the course of their investigations. It
appeared that the two sisters. Miss Margery Wren
and Miss Mary Jane Wren, had been in domestic
service. Yet, in spite of this humble occupation,
the one who died first left property worth 7(^900.
How was she able to save so much ? It was further

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, investigated it as far as they were able. But
their energies were not rewarded, for they were un-
able 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 injuries as 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
persons whom she named ?"

"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 possible assailants,
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 dis-
abilities, there is strong evidence of normal mental
alertness. It shows she was a person of active and
acute intelligence. Her answers show that she
appreciated the position.

"Just before she died. Miss Wren had a talk
with the vicar. It seems reasonable to suggest
that a person who knew she was facing death
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 satis-
faction, ' 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 survey of her different stages. The
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 un-
conscious 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
persons referred to in her statements. The fullest
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 was the inevitable ''open" one, to
the effect that the murder was committed by "some
person or persons unknown".

And there the matter has remained ever since.
As to what the secret was which Miss Wren guarded
so jealously there is not a scrap of evidence to
indicate. The motive was strong enough to seal
her lips even in the presence of death. The reader
will have to find his own solution in his 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 investi-
gation 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 upon a
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 upon going closer he
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 investi-
gation proved that this was not so. The body was
lying with the feet at the bottom of the ditch, the
head resting in 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,
consisting of 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 young woman named Agnes
Kesson, aged twenty, a native of Falkirk. She had
come south three or four years before. She had
been working as a waitress at a garage and tea-
house, 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 purpose of collect-
ing Miss Kesson's box, and did in fact take it away.

This move on the part of Miss Kesson consider-
ably surprised Mr. Beats and he remonstrated with
her about it.

THE BODY IN THE DITCH 79

*' Surely youVe going to let ' Scotch Bob' (Harper
was known by that appellation) take the box for
you," said her employer, "I have arranged it."

*'No," was the laconic reply of Miss Kesson.

After the box was removed Miss Kesson went
upstairs in order to change her clothes. (These
facts were supplied to the police by Mr. Deats.)
Miss Kesson put on a black dress and a black hat.
When she came downstairs again her employer
asked her,

"Where are you going?"

'Tm going out," replied the waitress.

Thereupon, taking her insurance cards with her,
she departed.

It was then about 2.30 in the afternoon. The
last thing she said as she left was,

"Tell Bob to tell Mrs. Young to get my box,
and send it on to the address. She knows."

Mr. Deats said that he did not understand what
she meant. However, he later on delivered the
message to the young fellow, who thereupon went
to Carshalton and saw Mrs. Young. He waited
for Miss Kesson, but she did not arrive. Mrs.
Young was puzzled about her non-appearance.
She had completely and mysteriously disappeared.
Deats said that he did not know what had become
of her. He knew that she received a telephone
message in the afternoon and that she seemed
quite her usual self, in fact she was rather jolly. Nor
did Harper know anything which was calculated
to throw any light upon the girl's disappearance.

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 cyclist pass 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
up her duties the previous Christmas. Prior to this
she had been a barmaid at a public-house in
Sutton, where she remained some years. Occasion-
ally, said Deats, she would talk about the pillion
rides she had had. She had a brother in the Army.
She had very little money when she arrived at
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 garages as to the car which it was con-
jectured 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
company with a young man for some time, but I
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 girl was 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 way she went
or whether she had any luggage with her. He said
that they both got on very well together, and
would probably have been married soon.

Deats advanced this theory of what had hap-
pened: 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 may have made an appoint-
ment 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 up the lane, instead of, as he thought she
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 girl being 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 state-
ments 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 dia-
logue between the witness and the coroner:

Coroner: Did your husband know where the
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 say. He felt he would like
to know where she went. Previously she had told
him she was going to Sutton.

Coroner: Was there any other reason why he
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 string was 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-constable testified 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 very worried about her."

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 Wednes-
day, while he was clearing up, he heard a tap on
the window. He was asked by a man to go to
Sutton and pick up a Mrs. Smith. He knew Mrs.
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 you know ?" asked the
coroner.

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

"Is there nothing more you know?" persisted
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 coroner had been very pressing with his
questions. Deats was in the box for over two hours.

The coroner then addressed the jury as follows :

"There is one person who has not been called.
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.

THE BODY IN THE DITCH 87

" So the position now is that with one exception
you have heard the stories of all the witnesses who
have been able to throw any light on the subject.

" It is the duty of the Court to be satisfied upon
several points, amongst them, how Agnes Kesson
came to her death. This Court is going to see that
that duty is done. It cannot be done to-day.

"It is quite clear that somebody knows some-
thing. Somebody is keeping back something which
has not been produced in evidence so far.
You have not heard any direct evidence at all as
to where Agnes Kesson was on Tuesday afternoon
and evening. I say someone is keeping something
back, and the whole truth has not been told you
here."

With which cryptic words the coroner again
adjourned his inquiry until August 13th.

In the meantime the police continued their
investigations with unflagging zeal. An interesting
development was the removal of a stair from the
cellar steps of Mr. Deats's cafe at Burgh Heath, so
that certain stains might be chemically examined.
Subsequently it was returned by Superintendent
Brown with, it was said, the remark, " It is no good.
It has not helped us". To which Mr. Deats
replied, "I never expected it would".

Another interesting development was the appear-
ance on the scene of an old man named Gorringe,
who, while attending the races at Epsom, stayed
at The Nook two nights, occupying, it was said,
the room that had formerly been Miss Kesson's.

88 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

He declared that he had seen Miss Kesson twice
the same afternoon at the races. She was accom-
panied, 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's stocking. She identified the stocking at
the inquest.

Somebody else was supposed to have seen her
on Derby day, shortly after the big race, accom-
panied 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 identify them.

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 any of them come forward in response to the
police invitation to do so.

Sir Bernard Spilsbury was able to supply some
interesting and 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 some-
where with the man or men who afterwards
murdered her, subsequently conveying her body —
possibly in 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
baffling mystery 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's gold
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 scantily clad. 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
fully reahse 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 your-
self."

The coroner then recalled the incident in con-
nection with the missing account-book and the fact
that Mr. Beats went to the police-station to 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 telling a 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 telling the 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
up Mrs. Greenhalgh's brother."

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 yourself justice,
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 shillings and 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 you realise the seriousness of
this," said the coroner impressively. " It is necessary
or desirable for you to produce the person who, 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 you are
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 person was who tapped on his
window. At length said the witness:

"I say ," mentioning the name of a neigh-
bour. "They are opposition people to me," he
added by way of explanation.

"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
up every track he can. I did, in fact, mention the
matter to the police."

THE BODY IN THE DITCH 95

Then the coroner proceeded:

"Assuming that Mr. or the family,

altogether or individually, deny anything about it,
we are back again to the original question of
whether you can produce them."

"I could not go any further," admitted Deats.

" Mr. is the only person I can think of. I have

had opposition from them ever since I went into
those premises. I have even had to put a fence up
to stop the annoyance."

The witness, being asked if he could remember
anything further, observed:

" Well, I can't say, although I know of a young
man who has never turned up to our place from
the Tuesday. I don't think it is of any importance,
though why he should stop away I don't know."

"What is his name?" asked the coroner.

Mr. " rephed Deats.

Have you told the police ?"
No, because we never thought of it until this
morning. I could not tell you his address. We
have seen him go by, but he has not been to our
place since. He was often talking to the girl, but
I do not think he would do anything wrong."

That concluded the evidence of Mr. Deats.

The next witness was the female shorthand-typist,
who used to keep Mr. Deats's books. Miss Winifred
Annie Woodhouse. She said she searched for the
account-book on the Saturday before Miss Kesson
left the tea-rooms. She was assisted by Mr. and
Mrs. Deats and Harper. They failed to find it.

C(

C(

I

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 you if you had found the book. She
said that you said, 'Yes, burned in the grate, but
intact'."

"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 any-
one 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 my sister with me."

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 say to me. I would not discuss anything
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 a good friend to you, and you will suffer for
this'. I walked out of the shop. The reheving
officer heard every word. I was afraid of Mrs.
Deats' appearance at the time. She looked to me
like a mad woman. I walked out of the shop and
sent to Scotland Yard and informed them of the
way I had been treated. Since then I have been
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 it,'* said 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 ex-
claimed :

"Cut that out!"

"You accused me of telling you 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, how-
ever, 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 any reply, and the officer
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 up and took her
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 up with you".
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 dirty looking.
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 garage. The
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 identi-
fication outside a garage. He had communicated
with the pohce and had been taken out in a motor-
car 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's dress, 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 away went on to London.
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 girl he 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 you feel that any further information

THE BODY IN THE DITCH IO3

can, at any time, be brought to my notice ?" To
which the officer repUed, "No, not within a reason-
able time".

The coroner then proceeded to sum up.

He pointed out to the jury that if they accepted
the evidence that Agnes Kesson died four to eight
hours before 6 a.m., and she had a meal two hours
before death, it would be reasonable for them to
consider very closely the evidence of anything that
happened during that material time — from lo
o'clock or later on Wednesday night, until two or
thereabouts on Thursday morning. He also re-
ferred to the fact that the evidence of Mr. Deats
was that he was driving towards the main Brighton
road on his way to Sutton in response to a message,
following a tap on the window. On the other hand
a police officer said that he turned to the right,
away from Sutton. He also pointed out that the
description given by Hodson of the hair and clothes
of the young woman did not agree with that of
the police.

The summing-up occupied about forty minutes.

The jury retired and were back again in court
in six minutes. Their verdict was the one generally
anticipated, namely, an "open" one. They found
that the girl had been murdered by strangulation,
but that there was not sufficient evidence to show
by whom.

And there the matter has remained ever since.

It is altogether a perplexing case. Not the least
mysterious feature of it is the absence, or apparent

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 some-
where 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 some-
body 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
up. The blow preceding the strangling also
suggests the culmination of a murderous and frantic
struggle. The articles which were missing might
very- well have been taken with a view to creating
the impression that it was a murder for robbery,
and so lead the police away from the true motive.
As to the identity of the culprit, there is lament-
ably little evidence to direct one. The police did
their best, receiving and considering something like
400 statements. If they really did know in their
own minds as to who the culprit was — which
sometimes happens in such cases, as I have had
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 as there is no "statute of limitations "
in regard to the functioning of the criminal law,
we may yet have a solution vouchsafed in this 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, a neighbouring village. On her 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 go to
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 up a few minutes later
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 eye and tried to get hold of the wheel of the
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 smoulder-
ing 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 plausible tongue 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 locality to be able to so effectually disappear
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
on their way to Hexham. He had had tea with
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 any such attempt had been made. While
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 very severe one. All her clothes had
been burned off and she was exposed to the effects
of a keen frost. She was rolUng about in agony,
moaning and sucking the grass, and asking for water.

The burned car was removed from the scene
and taken back to the garage at Otterburn, where
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
very popular in the district, where, of course, she
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 motor-
car''. 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:

THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-GA

r(7i7)

First. About 28, 5ft. Sin. in height; short,
dark moustache, very bad teeth, dark hair, thin in
front; dressed in dark overcoat with broad belt,
and wearing a thin blue-striped collar.
Vf Second. About 40, 5ft. 5in. in height; broad
face, prominent cheek bones, very bad teeth,
practically none in upper jaw; wearing slate-
coloured suit, no overcoat or hat, badly in need of
a shave. Wearing a thin blue-striped turndown
collar.

"Third. About 30, 5ft. yin. in height, well
built; wearing a blue overcoat and had no hat.

"All the men speaking with a Scottish accent.

"The destination of the car is believed to be
London, and it had come from Scotland via
Jedburgh."

Although it had not been considered necessary
to enlist the aid of Scotland Yard, the latter were
rendering a certain measure of assistance.

Shortly after these three men were found and
interviewed by the police. They said that they
gave no lift to anybody of the description of the
"wanted" man. So away went that "clue".
Other clues were the discovery of a footprint, a
glove and a cap near the burned-out car. But
like the other clues they led to nothing.

A Mr. W. Jennings, a motor-car expert of
Morpeth, supplied an interesting theory of how the
car left the road and finished in flames on the moor.
He said that the car was apparently pulled up at
the side of the road, on the right hand, coming

112 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

from Newcastle to Otterburn. It was then, he
said, re-started and driven over the six-foot embank-
ment 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 deliberately fired by an outside agency.
There was no evidence of a struggle in the car
having caused it to go over the side, nor any sign
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 examin-
ation. 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 investigation had 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 provisionally adjourned until February
2nd.

In the meantime nothing of much importance
had transpired, certainly nothing very enlightening,
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 trades-
men, all of whom had known Miss Foster well.
The police, of course, were in full attendance,
bringing with them many "exhibits" and innumer-
able 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 gentle-
man 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 way to the garage for petrol. Her intention
was to pick him up again at the Percy Arms, in the
village. Her sister, Dorothy, suggested that she
should take with her a young man named George
Philipson, with whom she was then keeping
company. With this Mrs. Foster agreed, said she
thought it was a good idea, and that she might pick
him up in the village. To this the girl agreed and
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 girl replied, "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 sitting next 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 up in a blaze". All she felt afterwards for
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 grass, she was so thirsty. She said she
next thought she heard a whistle, and a "squeaking
or scrunching" sound, and thought it was a motor-
car. But she did not know which way it went.

Mrs. Foster questioned her daughter about this
man, and Miss Foster said that the man said he

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 you think that at any time she thought she
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

THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-GAR II9

home about 10.50 p.m. In passing the spot known
as Wolf's Jaw he saw a blaze on the right hand
side. He saw smoke and flames and slowed down
and put on his brakes. He was asked if his brakes
squeaked at all and he replied that they did not.
This was, of course, in reference to the statement
made by Miss Foster that she thought she heard
a squeaking or scrunching.

Beatty said he looked towards the flames and
saw that it was a car. He saw no movement. The
car appeared to be burned out. He reckoned that
it had been burning for about half an hour. He
thought it had been abandoned, so he drove on.
The time was then between 9.30 and 10 p.m.

The brother of Miss Foster then gave evidence.
On January 7th he visited the scene of the tragedy
with Inspector Russell and noticed that the car
was in low gear. He saw his sister shortly before
she started for Rochester with passengers, and
after she was brought home injured. He asked her
whether it was the man whom she had taken to
Ponteland who had injured her, and she said it
was and described him as being a little taller than
her brother, but not so stout. He wore a bowler
hat and dark overcoat.

The police then gave evidence of being present
when Miss Foster made her statement and suggesting
some of the questions.

The inquest was again adjourned, and resumed
on February 5th. Important evidence was now
given by Professor Stuart MacDonald, pathologist

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 post-mortem examination. He read out from
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
on any other part of the body. An internal examina-
tion showed no injuries except severe burning.
From these appearances we are of opinion that
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 injuries he 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 anyone it
would probably soak through to the back of the
clothes, which might possibly account for the burns
at the girl's back.

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 very difficult thing to do
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 some-
thing 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 girl herself 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 accident-
ally ? 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 con-
sider what her object might have been. Was her
object to obtain money through the insurance on
the car?"

The coroner proceeded:

124 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"There were two policies, one for ^{^4505 covering
the car in a garage only, and another one covering
cars up to 30 horse-power in the sum of ^^yoo.

" 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
position of 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 villagers with
loudly expressed approval. The verdict, however,
did not satisfy the 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 scandal-
ous 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 insur-
ance 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 pro-
tested, "to support these shameful theories, but I
recognise that they were, perhaps, inevitable,
distressing though they were to my family. The
jury's verdict vindicated my girl's integrity and
good faith."

The letter then went on to point out that in an
interview with a newspaper reporter, the Chief
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 earnestly hope and
pray you will devote your attention, in conjunction
with the following questions:

"i. Was my daughter's burned car left un-
protected for hours so that finger-prints could 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 circum-
stances. 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

THE BURNED-OUT MOTOR-GAR I27

his opinion upon the evidence which has been
given in the preceding pages. The coroner's jury
has placed it upon record that Miss Foster was
deUberately murdered by some person who is still
at large. As the coroner pointed out, it is difficult
to conceive what motive the murderer had for such
a terrible deed, if you except that the culprit, as
suggested by the coroner, was a homicidal lunatic.
There was really no motive at all. If murder it
were, then it was an absolutely purposeless murder,
and only a homicidal lunatic could have com-
mitted such a deed.

The suggestion made by the coroner that Miss
Foster might have committed the deed herself in
order to gratify a desire for notoriety — "get into
the limelight" as it is sometimes called — will
scarcely bear scrutiny. It is inconceivable that a
girl, however much she might desire to "make a
noise", would deliberately condemn herself to such
a painful ordeal as that which led to her death.
It might, of course, have been an accident, brought
about by some mysterious means — she might have
been taken suddenly ill and not known quite what
she was about — and the tale she told the result of
imagination arising from hysteria. But of course
it is but a vague suggestion.

It is safe to say that this was one of the most
mysterious murders ever committed.

VI

THE LATE CALLER

{The Case of Edward Creed, Bayswater, July, 1926.)

In the year 1926 Edward Creed was manager
of the old-established cheesemonger's shop belong-
ing to Messrs. Philip Lowry & Co., and situated
at Leinster Terrace, off the Bayswater Road,
Lancaster Gate. He was forty-six years of age,
was a member of the Special Constabulary and
had been in his berth many years. He lived with
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
past seven. Prior to this Leonard had, as was the
custom at the shop, deposited a basin of hot water
in the cellar for Creed to wash in. He also lit the
gas in the cellar. Then went upstairs again, said
"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 up his accounts
and locked the money in the safe, which was in the

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
investigation ihey found that three gas jets were
fully turned 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
upon Creed.

At this stage it will be interesting to 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 up a severe
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 -£^0 and ;^8o (it was afterwards ascertained)
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 inter-
viewed 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 suspicious and Mr. Tucker was an ex-policeman.
A policeman was on "point" duty, quite near.
The men caught sight of him and soon after dis-
appeared. But they returned shortly after. One
then stood near the corner of the street, the other
on the opposite side of the way. The latter carried
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 descriptions seem
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 East-
bourne, 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 finger-
prints found in the shop, and these were photo-
graphed, 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 descriptions of the two "wanted" men:

** (i). Aged 27 or 28, height 5ft. Sin. or 5ft.
9 in., thinly built, dark features, short-clipped black
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
away to any possible criminal by any revelation
in his court. He could have called Dr. Bronte and
other important witnesses, but it would be inex-
pedient to do so on that day.

An anonymous letter had also been received by
the police, to which they evidently attached con-
siderable 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, who-
ever 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 definitely what he or she knows. It is very

THE LATE CALLER I35

misleading to the police to keep behind the scenes.
If the person would come forward and say what
his information is the police can investigate it, and
see if there is any foundation for the statement
made, otherwise it is wasting the time of the police,
throwing them on the wrong scent, and helping a
criminal to escape.

"I appeal to that individual to take his or her
courage in both hands and say definitely what the
information is. If fear is the reason for the person
keeping in the background I will tell him or her
that he or she need have no fear at all as to the
consequences.

"The person will be afforded ample protection,
and even if personal violence is feared through
giving evidence, in this case the individual con-
cerned ought to have a certain amount of personal
courage in the interests of the public, the State,
and justice, and exercise that personal courage by
coming forward and defying any person who has
threatened him or her."

The police themselves also issued the following
official intimation to the individual in question:

"No response has been received by the police
to the appeal made through the Press for the
anonymous writer who sent two letters to
Chief Constable Wensley to get into touch
with him.

"These letters were postmarked August 4th and
August gth respectively, the first being addressed
to Insp. Wensley and marked 'Important, Urgent',

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 for-
ward 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 hand-
writing 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 obstinately refused 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 way connected with or knew

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 person has been arrested who
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 un-
known".

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 coup. The men who murdered Creed had
probably well studied the place and the move-
ments of Creed very carefully before they acted,
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 year 1926 Mr. Hilary Rougier, a retired
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 years. Mr. Rougier suffered
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 conversa-
tion.

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 dur-
ing 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
suspicion that there was anything wrong.

On each occasion that Dr. Brewer was at Nut-
hurst 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 mor-
phine 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.

THE PAYING GUEST I43

Dr. Lynch said that he had been handed iig

articles which had been taken from the house, a

considerable number of which contained food and

medical preparations. One bottle was labelled

''Linctus — one tablespoonful to be taken if the

cough is troublesome." It contained .15 per cent

of morphine. The whole bottle would contain

getting on for a fatal dose. There were also tubes

of morphine not yet opened. A bottle labelled

"Laudanum" contained tincture of opium, which

was I per cent morphine. A considerable quantity

had been taken from the bottle and would have

produced the results found by the analyst.

Here the foreman of the jury put the following
question to the witness: "You have told us that
death was due to a fatal dose of morphine. That
is the impression the jury have got."
" I cannot say that," replied Dr. Lynch.
The inquest was then adjourned till the following
day, and was thence continued daily.

Miss Mary Hope, of Queen's Gate, London, the
owner of Nuthurst, gave details of the letting of
that house. She described how the house came to
be let to the Lerwills, who had two small children.
She said that she had shut one or two of the cup-
boards before leaving the house. One of the
cupboards contained chiefly clothing and books.
Another had many bottles in it, one or two had
belonged to her father, who was a doctor. The
bottles had been there many years. Altogether
there were about 120 bottles. Some of them

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 floating about
inside as there was now.

Miss Hope returned to Nuthurst about October,
1926. The Lerwills had then gone, leaving the
key with an agent or a neighbour. In the mean-
time 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 pleas-
ant. 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 tele-
phoned 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 any importance to
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
inquiries about 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 eventu-
ally 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 man, then went into the box.

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 selling his
house at Guernsey, which was eventually sold for
;{^3,o8o. Mrs. Lerwill was present at this inter-
view. 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 press him for this cheque.

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 hand-
writing, 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 justice that no one is obliged to say any-
thing 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 age. During the last month of his
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 after-
noon. 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'ing to 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 arrange-
ments, 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 pay off a guarantee for me to the
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 re-
turned for lunch. Witnesses had said that Rougier

THE PAYING GUEST I5I

had died at four in the afternoon. The doctor
also said that "most certainly" Rougier's condition
was consistent with morphine poisoning.

Miss Hope was also recalled, and being shown
a bottle of morphine tablets, said she did not
recognise them as having been in the cupboard.

When the examination of Mr. Lerwill was
resumed, he was asked further about certain
cheques. Why did he make them out ?

"Mr. Rougier would say," replied Lerwill,
"'Just write it out and I will sign it'."

"What was the inducement offered ?" asked the
coroner.

"No inducement whatever," replied Lerwill.
"I said I had certain debts, and he said he would
be glad to help me."

" Were any of the cheques obtained by means
of any threat?" asked the coroner.

"None whatever," replied Lerwill.

"Would you give the same answer regarding
this cheque for £1,850 ?" asked the coroner.

"Absolutely," replied Lerwill.

The witness went on to explain that he had not
seen Rougier's pass-book until he came into court.
He thought he was worth more than he really was.
He had himself received from him between ^^5,000
and /^6,ooo.

"In March there was only :(^i50 left," said the
coroner. " In May you had a cheque for £80. How
was Mr. Rougier going to maintain himself on
what was left?"

152 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

"I have not the faintest idea," replied the
witness. "I should have looked after him, or my
people would."

"Why should your people be called upon to
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 you suggest Rougier got it himself?" asked
the coroner.

"He might have done," replied Lerwill.

"Do you consider he took it himself?" asked
the coroner, to which the witness replied, "I
cannot say."

The witness was then asked to explain the
presence in the house of a bottle of laudanum, and
he said that Rougier asked him to get some for his
dog's paws, which were afflicted with eczema.
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 you any explanation as to why he should
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 money of her own, it all belonged
to her husband. The banking account was
opened in her name as her husband was in diffi-
culties at the time. In reply to a question, she
denied ever having administered any noxious drug
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 1925, and
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 very fond of him. In fact
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 registers of all chemists in Horsham.
No record of sale of poison to W. F. Lerwill since
1924. All sold have been contained in prescrip-
tions'."

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 appear to be obvious. Mrs. Smith's
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 any person or persons in a
finding involving a criminal offence, unless they
were satisfied without a reasonable doubt that
there was a prima facie case 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 Superin-
tendent and asked him, "Do you want to see me ?"
"No," replied Boshier, and that was all that trans-
pired. 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
one of those little vague sequels which often attend
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 say ? The whole mind of the police on the
subject would no doubt be very interesting and
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 year 1929 there lived at
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 way to
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 way there. On going to the back
of the Jackson bungalow she found Mrs. Jackson
upon the ground and being lifted up by her
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 up and gone out, accompanied by his dog,
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

THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW 1 59

where she lived, as a woman of considerable mystery.
She Uved well, even luxuriously, and always had
plenty of money. She did not seem to have any
particular occupation, although she had created
the impression that she was an authoress. She
received many letters, some of which were supposed
to come from her agent, who had her business
affairs in hand. As a matter of fact, she was not
an authoress, and was incapable of writing a line
worthy of being published. She had an occupation
which was very far removed from that of an
authoress, an occupation which was at once
degraded and criminal. We shall next proceed to
turn a few pages of her grim history and describe
her career which culminated in her savage murder.
Early in the year 191 9 she was lunching at the
Comer House in the Strand when she got into
conversation with a man who was seated near
her. After a little while she asked him his name
and he said it was Ingram. He also said that he
had been badly wounded in the war. They
chummed up together and afterwards went to the
pictures. Eventually the lady, who lived in the
country, had to return, and the two went to
Waterloo Station. They arranged to meet again
in a day or two. They met, had dinner together
and again went to the theatre. We may as well
reveal the fact that Ingram was really Jackson,
who, with a few pals, was having a few days'
recreation in London. The lady said she was
Madame B , that she was an authoress and

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
money, even to the degree of extravagance, and
would sometimes give as much as a pound note
as a tip for quite a trifling service.

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 girl came 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
marry her, he was not disinclined to fall in with
her suggestion. In addition to the fact that he
had become very fond of her, there was the tempting
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 papers and by that means had
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 of Captain 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 finally settled 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 years they remained at Ash
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 sur-
mounted 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 likely to have any children of their own, they
adopted the little girl, Betty. The adoption was
carried out in due legal form. 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 freely with 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 subse-
quently became a gardener. She was not in any
way entitled to any of the exalted positions which
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 relent-
less, Delilah made victims wherever she went, and
pitiful tragedy 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
eyes fell upon a man who held an official position
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" precisely the man who would
become an easy and a complete victim. The man
in question was such an individual. The meeting
occurred somewhere in the year 1914. The woman

was then calling herself 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 menda-
cious narrative poured into his ears by the adven-
turess, 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 position of 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, more-
over, ready and easy for the plucking. She was
not long in beginning this process of acquirement.
Incidentally she 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 pay dearly for it. She would let him
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 con-
tinued. 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 restitu-
tion 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 woman, who
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 very well have been the
weapon with which the murder had been com-
mitted. 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

THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW 167

the prosecution, and Mr. Jenkin Jones defended
Jackson.

What was the case for the prosecution ? It was
by no means a strong one. Mr. Hunt seemed to
have some difficulty in making it convincing. The
argument he put forward was that, money having
run short after the trial at the Old Bailey, Jackson
was desirous of getting rid of what was now an
encumbrance to him, that Mrs. Jackson had got
inside the house on the night of the murder and
taken off her hat, and that she was at once attacked
by Jackson, that she ran outside and there fell
down. The jacket, he also argued, was used by
Jackson to shield him from getting bloodstained
and to smother the woman's cries. He said that
while on the way to the hospital Jackson, although
he had twice said he would advise the police, did
not do so. Also that when the two neighbours
came in he did not say anything about his wife
having been attacked. He further said that
Jackson had purposely created an atmosphere of
mystery about his wife, although there was really
no mystery about her.

None of these arguments appear very cogent.
Was there not mystery about the woman ? Her
whole life was shrouded in mystery, and necessarily
so on account of the degraded life she was leading.
Her watchwords were deceit and mystery. The
fact that Jackson does not seem to have acquainted
the police at once is not necessarily significant.
Different people behave differently in the face of

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 ascer-
tained, 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 anony-
mous threatening letters, two of which were read
in court. They were worded as follows :

*' Lest you forget. This is to tell you that we are
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
yours. I suppose he is somebody's husband as
well.

'' When we get you we will tar and feather you,
and for every quid you have taken from us you
will get another lump of tar and one more feather.

''We will show people you are black outside as
you are in. We don't mind doing quod for 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 appear to
have been any attempt to do more than throw out
the suggestion.

The brother of the dead woman, a Liverpool
fireman, named Robert Atkinson, gave evidence.

170 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

He said he had not seen his sister for fifteen years.
The witness, in faltering tones, 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 my brother-in-law
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 position of 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's life. 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
youngest daughter of the Duke of Abercorn. He
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 Jack-
son's wife led him to believe that the child was the
illegitimate offspring of that Peer. Of course there
was no truth in it.

One of the witnesses was a man, who said
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 threaten-
ing 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 sup-
posed, 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 Metro-
politan 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 interesting evidence as to the nature of
the attack upon Mrs. Jackson. For the purpose of
illustrating his theories a dressmaker's dummy
figure was produced in court, on which was fitted
the jumper and loosely-fitting black 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, referring to 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 slightly raised. 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 replied Jackson.

"Did you murder your wife?" was Mr. Jones'
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 you surprised," continued Mr. Hunt,
"because you thought that by all your talk about
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," replied Jackson. "I
thought she had a cut on the face until we had
bathed it."

"You must have seen what she was suffering

THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW I75

from," continued the Judge, "when the lamp was
brought out ?"

''We couldn't see any cut of any description
until the doctor cut my wife's hair away," said
Jackson.

*'But someone had struck her violent blows on
the head?" continued the Judge.

"We didn't know whether she had been struck
or had fallen," replied the witness.

"But there is nothing to fall on," retorted the
Judge, "the ground is soft."

Then Mr. Hunt intervened with some supple-
mentary questions.

"Why didn't you call the police?" he asked.

"I didn't think," replied Jackson.

"But you have said you were frightened," con-
tinued counsel. "What were you frightened of?"

" My wife had always been frightened," replied
Jackson.

" Please answer the question and don't go off in
a cloud of words," protested Mr. Hunt. "Why
were you frightened?"

"I didn't know what had happened," replied
Jackson.

"Is that the best answer you can give?" asked
counsel.

"That is all I can say," said Jackson.

"Did you ask the doctor to telephone for the
police?" was counsel's next question.

"Yes," replied Jackson.

Here the Judge intervened again.

N

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 ?"
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 persisted in 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."

cc

THE SECRET OF THE BUNGALOW I77

Mr. Hunt continued:

"Did you not think when your wife's money had
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 you think it charming of her to take a
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 up against you," continued
Mr. Hunt, "but that you have not created
mystery about your wife to protect yourself?"

"I have only told you what I know," replied
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 argu-
ments 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 extensively from his
wife in the past. He suggested that on the night
of the murder the two had a quarrel, and that the
prisoner's subsequent conduct was consistent with
his efforts to save himself from the consequences
of the deed.

The Judge, during his summing-up, made preg-
nant observations which were anything but favour-
able 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
way that Mrs. Jackson had any enemies likely to
do her harm. . . . There is circumstantial evi-
dence 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

past of the dead woman, these observations on the
part of the Judge are difficult to understand.
Clearly he was altogether ignoring the anonymous
letters, which does not seem fair to the accused,
since not the slightest evidence was produced to
even suggest that they were written by the prisoner.
His lordship was also ignoring the fact that it had
been clearly demonstrated that Mrs. Jackson was
at all times very nervous and apprehensive of the
attack of a secret enemy.

It is also rather difficult to understand how coun-
sel 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
differently from 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 consider-
able 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 to say, the real culprit has never been
taken. It seems pretty clear, however, that Mrs.
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 appear, taking his weapon with him.
I think the police would have stood a better
chance of tracking him if they had not so quickly
and exclusively fixed their minds upon the pre-
conceived 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 case the 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 case, as we
have seen, the jury, in spite of what one must regard
as a distinctly unfavourable 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 says in his final address. I
shall presently indicate what I believe brought
about that state of things in the Liverpool case.
In the Jackson case there seems to be little doubt
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 upon the
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 many years at the house where he lived, was
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,
a telephone message was received at the Cafe,
requesting Wallace to meet a man named Qual-
trough, at 25 Menlove Gardens East, at 7.30 the
next night. The message was received by the
captain of the club, a Mr. Beattie, who passed it
on to Wallace, at the same time remarking that
it was "in the nature of your business". Meaning,

182

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 1 83

of course, that it was probably from somebody
who wished to take out an insurance poHcy.
Wallace repHed that he did not know where
Menlove Gardens East were. It was known that
the message came from a call-box situated about
400 yards from where Wallace lived. The district
where the appointment was made was some miles
from Wallace's residence. Although he did not
know where the particular thoroughfare called
Menlove Gardens East was, he was pretty familiar
with the district itself He decided to keep the
appointment the following evening.

We now move on to the night of the appointment
and take note of the following incidents. At 6.30
that evening a boy delivered milk at Wallace's
house. He saw and spoke to Mrs. Wallace —
she was an elderly lady — and that was the
last that anybody saw of that unfortunate lady
alive.

Wallace left the house at about 6.45, and at
about 7.6 or 7.10, he boarded a car at the
junction of Smithdown Lane and Lodge Lane.
On the way he made active inquiries for Menlove
Gardens East. He asked two conductors and a
police constable, two of whom told him that there
was no such place. While talking to the constable,
so it was said, he pulled out his watch and remarked,
"It isn't eight o'clock yet". This may have had
some connection in his mind with the time of his
appointment, to the effect, possibly, that there was
yet time to keep it.

184 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

In a further effort to discover the whereabouts
of Menlove Gardens East, Wallace entered a news-
agent's shop in Allerton Road and asked for a
directory, at the same time informing the pro-
prietress 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 weapon employed.

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 pan of a W.C. upstairs. The room in which
the body of Mrs. Wallace was found was not one
in which the Wallaces usually lived, but was only
used on special occasions, when, for instance, a
friend might call. The Wallaces invariably lived
in the kitchen. There was a gas-fire in 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 some-
body 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 up against the flame of the fire.
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 possibility of a burglarious entry, and Detective
Superintendent Hubert Moore, who took charge
of the proceedings, telephoned from Anfield Road
Station to all inspectors to detail men to all lodging-
houses, railway-stations and night cafes. Efforts
were also made to discover the weapon. Drains
were searched and open spaces examined, but
without result.

It was pretty clear that whoever the murderer
was he must have been extensively splashed with
blood. Wallace was searched and closely examined
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 particulars about
"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 company and had
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 irregularities" with 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 acquaint-
ances 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 remem-
bered, 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 import-
ance 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

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE igl

certainly very strong, and we shall deal with these
in due order.

First the telephone message. Their argument as
to this was that it was sent by Wallace himself, in
order to create an alibi. It was clear, said they, that
if anybody else had been desirous of getting Wallace
out of the way, he need not have resorted to this
device, for he could have waited near the house until
he had seen Wallace leave in the ordinary course of
things and then got in. How would he know also,
having sent the message, that it would not be
received by Wallace himself ? In addition to this,
and assuming that the man who sent the message
was indeed a genuine client desirous of taking out
a policy, why did he not write to Wallace at his
house or even call there ? Again, reverting to the
burglar theory, having sent the message, the
burglar or burglars would then have to keep watch
on the house to make sure that Wallace had
left. As he might leave from either the front or
the back way, they would have to keep watch on
both sides of the house. If only one man was
involved in it, this would be rather a difficult task.
Altogether the telephone message seemed to the
police a very unconvincing incident, from the
point of view of burglars.

Not unreasonably, they watched Wallace and
his movements very closely. One of the officers
remembered that on the afternoon of the murder
he passed him in the street, and that he noticed
that Wallace looked very pale and agitated, the

192 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

inference being of course that he then had in con-
templation 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
may have got upon them he must have washed
off, afterwards dressing himself again. It was said
that he may even have had a bath. It was certainly
rather unfortunate for this theory that no trace
of anybody having had a bath in the bathroom
upstairs could 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 appear to have suspected.
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 neigh-
bour with the burglary theory and in support of
his alibi.

Reverting to the message received over the
telephone. We have seen that the police con-
tention 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
any event, a voice heard over the telephone has
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 may be deceived about a voice heard over
the telephone. Supposing you know the speaker
very well and are in the habit of listening to his
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 listening to 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 proven facts. And
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 up against some nice
calculations. They had to rely upon the not

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
slightly the 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, know-
ing 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
carefully prepared 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 propose further to
reproduce some portions of the speech for the
prosecution, and thus present to the reader some
of the forceful arguments of counsel in support of
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 — open off Menlove Avenue.
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,

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 1 99

because it was necessary, if we are taking the right
view of the facts, that he should, as far as possible,
draw attention to the fact that the next night he
was going at 7.30 to be somewhere some miles
away from his house.

"At 6.30 on the night of the tragedy a boy
delivered milk at the Wallaces' house. He spoke
to Mrs. Wallace, and that was the last time she was
seen alive. We know that at that time, from
Wallace's own statement, he was there, and
apparently left the house somewhere about 6.45,
and you may take it that if he is guilty of this
atrocious crime, it must have been committed
within the time from 6.30 to about 6.50, because
between 7.6 and 7.10 he boarded a car at the
junction of Smithdown Lane and Lodge Lane."

Mr. Hemmerde then dealt with the incident of
Wallace's return to his house.

"Remember that he is living there," said counsel,
"with a woman of about his own age, who, as far
as we know, hasn't an enemy in the world — a frail,
rather old-fashioned woman — in one of those little
streets where you would hardly expect burglars to
find a very rich harvest. Immediately he found
out, as he says, that there was no Menlove Gardens
East, he hurried home, because he felt suspicious.
Why he should feel suspicious because someone
had given him a wrong address it is difficult to gather.

"Now, mark what happens when he hurries
home. At 8.45 Mr. Johnston, who lives next door
at No. 31, was leaving the house through the back

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
you go if you left your wife downstairs ? Would
you have looked in the downstairs room or gone
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 mack-
intosh ?" 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 upon which blood could fasten,
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 down-
wards. 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 sitting on the chair with
her head slightly forward 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 many of this kind, and know that
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 gap created by the absence of a motive. This
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 significant words, 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 definitely cleared up, as to how
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 any-
thing from jT'^o to ;^ioo. It depended upon the
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 gave it
as his opinion, you will remember, that there were
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 money and had no connection
with the money which he had collected for the
company. It went to prove that he was not in
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

GLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 20?

permit it. Instead he sent him by motor-car to
the house of liis sister-in-law, some miles away.
\Vallace did, however, the Superintendent went
on to explain, in fact sleep at the house on the
night of the 22nd. The following morning Wallace
attended at the police-station and gave the police
a good deal of assistance in connection with their
investigations in the case.

A point was made by the prosecution in con-
nection with the mackintosh which was found near
the body. It belonged to Wallace and had been
hanging up in the hall. When he was asked about
this garment, said Superintendent Moore, he
hesitated a good deal before acknowledging that
it was his. The prosecution maintained that there
need have been no hesitation on his part, as it
was obviously his coat. Mr. Oliver explained this
hesitation by stating that he, Wallace, had been
asked so many times about it before, when he had
already acknowledged the ownership, that he began
to wonder whether it was in fact his coat. Hence
the hesitation.

It should always be borne in mind that in cases
of murder, or any other serious forms of crime, the
importance of the smallest detail is magnified to
the utmost dimensions. I am not losing sight of
the fact, however, that quite trifling incidents
prove sometimes to be of the greatest significance.
But not all of them which emerge at a criminal
trial. One had to be very cautious in forming a
judgment.

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 telling passages. 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 way to approach it.
It should be asked, ' Who is the man ? ' We know
something of Wallace now. He is fifty, a delicate,
mild man, liked by everyone who knows him; a
man of considerable education, and refined, and,
as his diary showed (Wallace kept a diary, which
was found in the house), one with considerable
gifts of expression. That is the man charged with
this frightful crime.

"The question you must ask is, 'Why?' There
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 ex-
plained. "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-two years no one

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 209

has ever suggested that the prisoner was not
perfectly sane. He has been under medical super-
vision ever since his arrest, and I ask you to dis-
regard 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 un-
solved 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 say that
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 any pointing out that it is as much

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 goes against them
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 goes in his favour. I think we
may allow that the police, under such circum-
stances, 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 proves how difficult
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 message to himself?

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 even at 7.30 he was almost certain to be
innocent, but if he left at any time after 6.30 he
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 anyone had had a bath at
that time."

Other vital points in the evidence for the pro-
secution 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's way 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 knowl-
edge 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 'dread-
fully 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 may very well be that the ultimate and
surprising result of the trial was due not a little
to this unfair criticism of the police. Surely Mr.
Oliver does not suggest that the police, in addition
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 mac-
kintosh, 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 a photograph showing the mackintosh 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 way out.
That must have been after the photograph was
taken. Are you impressed by this, or Mr. John-
ston's 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 gas fire ?"

The skirt worn by Mrs. Wallace was burnt as
well as the mackintosh.

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 215

Mr. Oliver concluded his remarkable speech,
portions only of which I have given, as follows:

"Although I have no need to submit an alter-
native theory to that of the prosecution, I will do
so. My suggestion is, then, that when Wallace
had left the house a watcher called and was admitted
for the purpose of 'leaving a note' for Wallace.
The wife would light the parlour fire and, as she
arose, was struck down. That covers the facts,
and explains why a fire was alight in the room
never used, while the woman's sewing and the
evening paper were on the table in the kitchen,
showing they had obviously been sitting there with
a fire.

*'I would ask you to bear in mind Wallace's
undoubted affection for his wife, the utter absence
of motive, his condition of comfort so far as money
was concerned, his character — a gentle, kindly man
of refined tastes, who could write that diary and
congratulate himself on seventeen years of married
fife. That is the man you are asked to convict of
murder, and that is the man to whom I am now
going to ask you to listen. I need not have called
him. His story has been told over and over again
to the police. I do not think there ever was a case
in which so many statements were taken.

''Remember that in so far as statements were
made by him on that Friday night, if he is an
innocent man, consider what condition of mind
he must have been in, whether quiet, as the police
say; stunned by shock; or whether sobbing when

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 distinctly and calmly and con-
vincingly. He said he had been married over
eighteen years and would describe his relations
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 upon your wife that night?"

"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
any longer than I can help.'"

"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 John-
stons, and explained that his wife knew all about
the message received from Mr. Qualtrough, and
advised him to go, as it might be worth his while.
He further stated that he never made a decision
in a difficulty without first consulting his wife.

Wallace thus explained the finding of the body:

"I could see my wife lying there on the floor.
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 cross-examin-
ation 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
amount of Prudential money in the house, and
suggested that the average was rather ^lo than
£2^, but to this Wallace would not agree.

Wallace having stated that he knew his wife had
no enemies, counsel said:

"Although you gave the police the names of
certain people who might have been admitted to
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.

"Presumably," said counsel, "as he rang up
the City Cafe, he must have expected you to be
there?"

"Possibly," replied Wallace.

"An admirable opportunity for him to have
gone round to your house only a few minutes
away?" insinuated counsel.

"Yes," agreed the witness.

"And your wife left there alone?" continued
counsel.

"Yes," again responded the witness.

"Has anyone left a message for you before at
the City Cafe?" asked counsel, very impressively
and suggestively.

"No," replied Wallace, quietly and readily.

"Has anyone left a message for you of that kind
before?" persisted counsel.

"No," replied Wallace. "I have never received
a message like that before in my life."

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 message or ever go to Menlove Gardens.
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 up the
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 up Mr. Crewe at his office
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 entirely new name
to me."

"Doesn't the whole thing strike you," said
counsel, "as very remarkable that he should ring
you up for business in another district and expect
you to go there, and yet, without knowing whether
you had gone there or not, wait outside your
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 fairly term 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 fairly recently
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 my own house. But I did
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 light in the kitchen — through the window of the
back-kitchen ?

Witness: Yes.

Counsel: Didn't Police-constable Williams say
to you, " When you first came up the yard did you
notice any light shining 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 separating the kitchen

GLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 223

from the back kitchen ? (Presumably meaning the
scullery.)

\VrrNESs: Yes.

Counsel : If that was shut, how would there be
any light from the kitchen to the back kitchen ?

Witness: There would not be any, but I do
not say the door was closed.

Counsel : But if it had been closed there would
have been nothing to make you uneasy ?

Witness: I could not have seen it.

Counsel: What was there before entering the
house, with reference to the light in the kitchen,
that could make you uneasy ?

Witness : When I tried the back door in the first
attempt, in walking away from it I looked through
the back kitchen window and I could see across
at the angle that there was no light shining in the
kitchen.

Counsel : But if the door were shut there would
not have been ?

Witness: I had no reason to suppose that the
door was shut. The mere fact that I could not get
in, coupled with the fact that there was no light
showing anywhere, naturally made me uneasy.

The questioning now became very close,
counsel pressing witness very hard.

Counsel: If she was sitting there, as you thought,
making herself comfortable for the evening, would
you not have expected the door to be shut ?

Witness: Not necessarily.

Counsel: Not when she had a cold?

224 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

Witness: Not necessarily.

Counsel: I am not talking about "not necess-
arily". I am talking about a woman with a cold
left nursing it in the kitchen. Wouldn't you expect
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 you looked through the window,
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 you were not uneasy then ?

Witness: I was both uneasy and not uneasy, if
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 gone upstairs. I did not know
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 say he remem-
bered distinctly that 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 open, did that increase your uneasiness ?

Witness: Yes. It made me feel things were not
quite right.

Counsel then turned his attention to the con-
dition 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 difficulty in getting into 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
go round to the back door and find myself unable
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 con-
sidered it, as he persisted with it at great length.

The cross-examination continued:

Counsel: When did you cease to have that
opinion ?

Witness: I don't know.

Counsel: Let us be quite clear. The result of
your investigation leaves you now under the
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 weapon. Wallace denied that he
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 char-
woman. 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 slightest fear of what the poUce
would find out ?"

"I had no fear whatever !" emphatically replied
Wallace.

''Then why should you worry about any indis-
cretion?" persisted Mr. Hemmerde.

"Because I realised I was suspected," replied
Wallace, "and anything I said might be mis-
construed."

"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 except for the mackintosh.

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 Univer-
sity, 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

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 23I

testify that they saw Wallace on that day and that
he was quite normal. The Judge, however,
intimated that Mr. Oliver need not do that, and
that it must not be assumed that a man's demeanour
might indicate that he was going to commit a
crime. That was tantamount to a direction to the
jury to ignore this evidence.

After several witnesses had been called for the
defence, whose evidence tended to contradict that
of the prosecution as to the time Mrs. Wallace was
last seen, Mr. Oliver made his final appeal. And
a very impassioned one it was, although it seems a
pity that he should again have attacked the police.
He reproached them for not calling certain evidence
in these words: "The police had that evidence
but they did not call it. How many other state-
ments have they got which might throw light on
the matter?" He continued: "What is the case
for the police ? It has varied from day to day.
At the police-court it was Wallace in a mackintosh
who killed his wife. No suggestion then that he
was naked. Professor M'Fall has sought to impress
us with the suggestion that there were indubitable
stains of blood on the mackintosh, showing how
the blood had squirted, but if there is one word of
truth in that why was it left till the trial ? Not a
word of such a suggestion was made at the police-
court, and I ask you to reject the suggestion."

Counsel then referred to Wallace's attitude in
the witness-box, which had been remarkably calm
and collected.

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 possible that he did it—
not nearly enough."

Mr. Hemmerde followed with his final speech,
in which he again outlined the story for the pro-
secution, 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 straight to the call-box from

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 233

which the message was sent. It was a box that
Wallace had used. Whoever sent the message went
to a box where tliere was no light except 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 person was imitating another
person's voice you might imagine he would do so
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 up later, on finding Wallace was
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 gone finally to a newsagent's
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 you think

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 open and music on it —
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 you believe anyone would think
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 suppose anything to the contrary."

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 in-
variably 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 was committed some time on the evening of
January 20th, in a house in a populous neighbour-
hood, 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 on probabiHties, unless 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 appearances Wallace and his wife
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 any reasonable presumption that
it was the accused who telephoned the message to
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 inquiries simply 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 appear now that the more probable
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 dis-
crepancies 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 seriously splashed 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 photo-
graph 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
very improbable, that would be a very strong
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 guilt of the prisoner.

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 239

"The times given in evidence are not very
precise, although there is one time which I think
precise, and that is the time the prisoner boarded
the tram at Lodge Lane. The fact that you can
fix that time enables you to fix with a certain
amount of certainty when he must have left the
house.

'*I must say I do not agree with any attacks
made upon the police in connection with the conduct
of this case. I think they have done their work
\vdth great enthusiasm and ability, but I cannot
help thinking they were guilty of an error of
judgment in n. c calling the two witnesses, Jones
and Wildman, in the conduct of the prosecution.
(This was in reference to the time Mrs. Wallace
was last seen alive.) It is true that Jones's time
may have been a little uncertain; and Wildman,
although he h^d mentioned the matter to his
mother, had already associated it — though I don't
think it affectec5f the matter — ^with the solicitor for
the defence. But they are witnesses in a case of
this sort where the ascertainment of the time is
so important. They are witnesses who, I think,
should have be^ called by the prosecution. The
case of the prosecution, as it stands, depends
entirely upon the evidence of Close.

"You may think the medical evidence does not
afford you much guidance or assistance as to when
the woman met her death. The evidence leads to
conflicting views. You may think that it does not
do much to enable you to say when the woman was

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 weapons were
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 weapons, but
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 message and sought to
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 any bolt drawn, but that was about all
he could say. Mrs. Johnston did not notice, one

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 24I

way or the other. Prisoner said he at first thought
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
you attach any importance to the fact that he
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 diffi-
culty. On the other hand, the prosecution said,
'Nothing of the sort. He knew exactly what he
was doing and he was feigning a difficulty that did
not exist'.

"The question you have to determine is not
' 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 away. It is difficult to say what motive

242 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

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 skilfully devised and so skilfully executed,
and there is such an absence of a trace of anything
to incriminate anybody as to make it very difficult
to say — it is a matter entirely for you — that it can
be brought home to anybody in particular. Can
you say it is absolutely impossible that there was
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 everyone concerned, most of all, one would
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, clearly proving 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 steadfastly at 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-
up. I have always found that it is very difficult
to say definitely how 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 reading a 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 studiously impartial
— 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
up the cudgels in their defence. This kind of
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 com-
posure of the prisoner made an unfavourable
impression upon them. Lastly, the jury were faced
with this challenging problem: If Wallace did
not commit the murder, who did ? And their
minds failed to grasp the idea that anybody else
could have committed it. So they adopted the

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 247

only alternative that seemed available to them.
The Judge, it will be observed, practically told
them that so mysterious was the crime that the
evidence was insufficient to point to anybody in
particular as the culprit. However, they evidendy
thought it was, and acted accordingly.

We have heard from time to time a good deal
about a possible "perfect murder". Here, without
a doubt, we have it. This case easily beats any
work of fiction ever turned out by the most skilful
writer of detective stories. We have the no mean
testimony of the Judge on the point. I will repeat
it: ''This murder, I imagine, must be almost
unexampled in the annals of crime ... so
devised and arranged that not a trace, as far as
I can see, remains which points to anyone as the
murderer ^\ One would have thought that these
weighty words, emanating from the occupant of
the bench, would have prevented the jury returning
a confident and unanimous verdict of guilty.
Clearly they thought they knew better than his
lordship.

Argue as you may about this case, you cannot
come to any definite conclusion as to who the
author of the crime might be or what the motive.
The possibilities are very few. Let us consider
them. I have already referred to the theory of a
burglar, but it will bear a little further looking
into. As has already been pointed out, there were
no marks of a forcible entry having been made.
There was no indication of how the supposed

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 certainly would 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 practically killed 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 circum-
stances, would have gone into the house and com-
mitted 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 legally concerned
with motive. Of course, if they can also show
what the motive was it tends to strengthen their
case. But it does not necessarily weaken 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 fugitive kind 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 melodramatic-
ally 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
inflicting such very severe injuries, which would

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 25I

appear to be the result of the display of more
strength than is usually possessed by women. But
this I think, like many other familiar ideas concern-
ing the female sex, is a fallacy. A woman, under
the influence of strong passion, and with such a
weapon as was available and was clearly used, was
capable of inflicting very 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

252 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

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.

w

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 pro-
ceeding, 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 prayers as to whether Wallace was actually

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 253

guilty, but we met a feeling that the verdict was
not justified by 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 prayer public anxiety of this kind. I should
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 justification for 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 character-
istics 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 may well be quite innocent has been
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 sem-
blance of a motive for the murder so far as his
client was concerned.

Mr. Oliver returned to his attack upon the police,
reiterating the 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. Hem-
merde 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

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 255

witnesses, that they had brought them into Une
and that they had suppressed evidence. I abso-
lutely refused in my speech to the jury to be taken
off what was really the conduct of the case by those
attacks, and I want to say here and now that, so
far as the police are concerned, I took charge of
the case at least a week before." Counsel also
pointed out this relevant fact: "It was not a City
of Liverpool jury, but a jury of the County of
Lancashire, deliberately chosen at the request of
my learned friend."

Not the least interesting features of the hearing
were the searching questions put to counsel by the
Judges. For instance, Mr. Justice Branson asked
Mr. Hemmerde:

''Assuming the murder was not committed by
the appellant, what evidence is there that the
telephone call was put through by him?" There
was of course no such evidence. At most it was
an inference. There was nobody who was prepared
to swear that the voice was that of Wallace. On
the contrary, the person who received the message,
Mr. Beattie, was quite confident that the voice
was not that of Wallace.

Mr. Hemmerde advanced the following argu-
ments :

"It is common ground," he said, "that the
person who murdered this unfortunate woman was
either the person who sent that message or the
person who has been convicted of the murder,
because common sense eliminates other possi-

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 absolutely safe, 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 care-
fully 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 carefully searched," 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 con-
tained 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, is it 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 quite clear in his mind,
bearing in mind the fact that it was the night his
wife had been murdered."

Mr. Hemmerde also dwelt at length upon the
prisoner's answers and demeanour generally to-
wards the Johnstons, arguing that he did not
exhibit any particular alarm. He also touched
upon the incident of the ownership of 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 they kept on asking you ' Is this your coat ? '
might you not say, ' If there is a patch it is mine ? ' "

Then Lord Hewart asked:

"Do you mean that the appellant repudiated
having said that the mackintosh was his ?"

"That is what the inspector suggested," replied
Mr. Hemmerde.

To which Lord Hewart replied:

"Ah!"

"And I am inclined to associate myself with it,"
said Mr. Hemmerde.

Said Mr. Justice Branson :

"It appears that if he had already admitted that
the mackintosh was his, he was only checking it

I

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 pro and con, and
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-five minutes,
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 difficulty and 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 upon to endure such a terrible ordeal.
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
pressing and 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 reply was that
there was no likelihood of this happening, as there
was no reason for awarding compensation under
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 "leading dates" in
this strange case, as published by the News-Chronicle,
and which presents the 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 following night.

Jan. 20 — Wallace seen in distressed condition during
afternoon by constable. Mrs. Wallace last seen
alive at 6.30 p.m. Crime discovered by husband at
8.30 p.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 telephone message.

Jan. 22 — All night search for weapon.

Jan. 23 — Inquest opened.

Jan. 24 — Taximan tells of a "highly agitated fare" 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 !

CLUE OF TELEPHONE MESSAGE 263

Apl. 22 — Charged at Liverpool Assizes. Wallace pleaded
"Not guilty".

Apl. 26 — Found guilty after an hour's consideration by
jury at close of four days' hearing. Mr. Justice
Wright said the murder was "unexampled in
annals of crime". There were no finger prints,
no sign of forcible entry, no bloodstains, except
where crime was committed, and no motive.

Apl. 27 — Wallace goes on hunger strike in cell.

May I — Breaks his fast.

May 4 — Fund for appeal raised.

May 17 — Prayers offered in Liverpool Cathedral for His
Majesty's Judges of Appeal, and intercession
service held.

May 18 — Appeal heard in London.

May 19 — Wallace free.

Thus we have one more case added to the already
long list of so-called "unsolved mysteries". Not
the least notable of them, one may add. The brutal
murderer of Mrs. Wallace is an "unknown". We
know that there are human beings who will kill
for no particular benefit to themselves, either
financial or otherwise, but merely for the lust of
killing. Primitive savages, upon whom civilisation
has laid but a very thin veneer. We may be sure,
in the absence of any ordinary motive, that the
slayer of that unhappy lady, Mrs. Wallace, was
one of those primordial brutes, both mentally and
temperamentally, but little removed from the
Stone Age. We may say that much, although we
may not be in a position to point definitely to the
particular individual. Therefore the question as
to who killed Mrs. Wallace is likely to remain an
impenetrable secret for all time.

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, 1930, P.C. Holland saw a motor car, without
lights, drawn up by the roadside. He pulled up and
made an investigation. He called to the driver, but
got no reply. He then opened the door at the side
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 away, for the purpose of getting orders
and collecting money. By an examination of a
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 possession of 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 dark-
ness. 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 up the
mystery. For mystery it was and still remains. The

266 MURDER MOST MYSTERIOUS

weapon from which the fatal shots were fired was
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 under-
growth 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 pellet marks 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 difficulty in
finding that this man was brutally murdered."

In spite of the fact that no finger-prints were
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 carefully guarded. Microscopical examination
of the pellets and 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 head-
lamps 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 investiga-
tion, 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. Some-
times 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 may have been
his very self-disciplinary habits which suggested
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 com-
mission of the deed, proceeded to swiftly and effect-
ively 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 very isolation of it constitutes a serious
obstacle to free investigation. However, let us hope
that at long last the murderer of the luckless Mr.
Wilson may be brought to judgment.

^*

■^;;*

»W-FV

'^^^ ei

Oe-"*'^

University of Torontc
Library

DO NOT

REMOVE

THE

CARD

FROM

THIS

POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED