- 2 days ago
Four 19th Century true crime cases that once made headlines but have since been largely forgotten
Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXNVw0S9_LZHhWTr-skizhg/join
Please remember to subscribe and hit the bell icon as well as leave a like and a comment for more videos every week!
Brief Case is a True Crime Channel focusing on old or lost cases that have been forgotten to history. If you have any recommendations for future cases that you would like to bring to light, feel free to reach out to me to: briefcaseuk@gmail.com
Music Credits
Music by Myuu
https://www.youtube.com/user/myuuji
Music by CO.AG Music
https://www.youtube.com/@co.agmusic
“Cicada” by Kevin MacLeod
https://incompetech.com/ Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Join this channel to get access to perks:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXNVw0S9_LZHhWTr-skizhg/join
Please remember to subscribe and hit the bell icon as well as leave a like and a comment for more videos every week!
Brief Case is a True Crime Channel focusing on old or lost cases that have been forgotten to history. If you have any recommendations for future cases that you would like to bring to light, feel free to reach out to me to: briefcaseuk@gmail.com
Music Credits
Music by Myuu
https://www.youtube.com/user/myuuji
Music by CO.AG Music
https://www.youtube.com/@co.agmusic
“Cicada” by Kevin MacLeod
https://incompetech.com/ Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00:08Before we begin, I would like to say a huge thank you to everyone who over the years has watched,
00:00:13commented and subscribed to the channel. I am very grateful to you all. A special thank you
00:00:19goes out to all of my channel members whose names are appearing on screen now. Your continued
00:00:24support is truly appreciated. If anyone would like to become a channel member, I have left a
00:00:29link in the description below. Today we will be looking at four 19th century cases and for the
00:00:35first case we go to England. Harriet Richardson was born in 1841 in the county of Essex in England.
00:00:45Her father, a devoted clergyman, instilled in her the values of faith and obedience. But his untimely
00:00:51death when Harriet was just 12 years old left a void in her life, one that no sermon or scripture
00:00:58could ever fill. With his passing, the family's modest stability began to unravel and Harriet,
00:01:04a girl of fragile intellect and an innocent disposition, became increasingly dependent
00:01:10upon those around her. Though life had not granted Harriet with wit or learning, fate had bestowed on
00:01:16her a modest fortune. When her great-aunt passed away, she had inherited £5,000, a substantial sum
00:01:24in Victorian England, enough to make her an attractive prospect for unscrupulous suitors.
00:01:29It was around this time that Louis Staunton entered her life, a young man of 23 who worked as an
00:01:36auctioneer's clerk and whose charm masked a calculating nature. He had already entangled
00:01:42himself with a 15-year-old girl named Alice Rhodes, a relationship that in the eyes of polite society
00:01:49would have been scandalous if publicly known. Alice had a stepfather, a man named Thomas Hinkman,
00:01:56who was distantly related to the Richardson family. In 1875, through this tenuous connection,
00:02:03Louis was unexpectedly introduced to Harriet. The meeting was not planned, but Louis, with his easy
00:02:09manner, quickly made an impression. Sensing that Harriet was a woman of wealth, yet perhaps of limited
00:02:15mental capacity. He wasted little time in courting her, seemingly determined to secure her affections
00:02:22and the advantages that might come with them. The romance was brief, and soon after meeting,
00:02:28Louis proposed to Harriet. To many who observed this rapid courtship, it was deeply troubling.
00:02:34Harriet's mother, now Mrs. Butterfield, after remarrying, was vehemently opposed to the engagement.
00:02:41She saw Louis as an opportunist, preying on her daughter's vulnerability and inheritance.
00:02:46Desperate to protect Harriet, Mrs. Butterfield sought to have her declared legally incompetent,
00:02:52and placed under the protection of the Court of Chancery. This led to legal proceedings,
00:02:57in which Harriet's family argued that her condition was so severe that she should be prevented from
00:03:03marrying. Claiming that she was too weak-minded to make such a decision on her own, the case was brought
00:03:09before the Lord Chancellor, who heard medical testimony from both sides. After careful consideration,
00:03:15the court ruled that the wedding could proceed. On the 16th of June 1875, Harriet and Louis were
00:03:22married, yet marriage did not bring happiness. The legal battle had only deepened the rift between
00:03:28Harriet's husband and her family, and although she remained in contact with them for the first few months,
00:03:33communication soon ceased. Her mother and her stepfather made repeated efforts to learn of her
00:03:40well-being, but their enquiries were met with silence. Eventually, a letter, supposedly from
00:03:45Harriet arrived, informing her mother, Mrs. Butterfield, that she was not welcome at her marital home.
00:03:52The letter was written in a very firm manner, and the words were cold and forceful, making Mrs.
00:03:57Butterfield think that this was entirely out of character for her daughter. She believed that the
00:04:02letter had been dictated by Louis almost immediately after she was married, Harriet had become pregnant,
00:04:08and on the 23rd of March 1876, she gave birth to a son, who the couple named Thomas Henry.
00:04:15The joy of the new arrival, however, was short-lived, as instead of it being a time of celebration,
00:04:21it was overshadowed by the changes that followed. Louis purchased a house called Little Grey's near the
00:04:27village of Cuddam in Kent, but rather than establishing a family home with his wife and child,
00:04:32he chose to live there with Alice Rhodes. Harriet and her infant son were sent to live a mile away
00:04:37in
00:04:37Firth Cottage, under the cruel and watchful eye of Louis' younger brother Patrick and his wife Elizabeth,
00:04:43who was Alice Rhodes' elder sister. Harriet and Thomas were confined to the small upstairs room,
00:04:49and deprived of even the most basic comforts. There were no curtains to shield them from the elements,
00:04:54no washing facilities, and no proper furniture. Harriet, already vulnerable and inexperienced in
00:05:01the harsh realities of the world, was intimidated into silent obedience. Meanwhile, Mrs. Butterfield's
00:05:08instincts were warning her, with an unshakable certainty, that her daughter was in grave danger.
00:05:13By now Harriet's will was as frail as her body. Her world had shrunk to that miserable upstairs room,
00:05:19the ceaseless cries of her hungry child, and the suffocating presence of those who sought only to
00:05:25control and harm her. In March 1877, desperate to see her daughter, Mrs. Butterfield attempted to visit.
00:05:33She travelled by train to Housted Station, and was taken in a horse and carriage by George Wells to Firth
00:05:39Cottage. However, as she was walking up the path, Louis Staunton and his sister-in-law Elizabeth met her
00:05:46before she could knock on the door, and barred her from going any further. Mrs. Butterfield pleaded with
00:05:52them to let her see her daughter, or at least hear her voice, but the request was refused,
00:05:57and she was forcefully turned away, and told never to return. Things for Harriet and her baby did not
00:06:03improve, and by early 1877, Thomas had grown gravely ill, his tiny body deprived of proper nourishment,
00:06:10was wasting away. Each day bringing him closer to death, his sunken eyes and fragile limbs bore the
00:06:17unmistakable signs of starvation, but there are other, more sinister marks as well. A deep bruise on
00:06:23his cheeks suggested physical abuse, proof of the cruelty he had endured in his short tragic life.
00:06:29On the 8th of April, Patrick and Elizabeth Staunton finally took him to Guy's Hospital in London,
00:06:35but it was far too late. The child died that very day, his body too weak to fight any longer.
00:06:42His suffering was over, but for his mother, the nightmare continued.
00:06:48Four days later, Harriet was removed from Firth Cottage, and taken to a lodging house at 34 Forbes
00:06:55Road in Pench, a place that was meant to be a refuge. But when she arrived, the landlady recoiled in
00:07:01horror.
00:07:01Harriet was more shadow than woman, someone seemingly clinging to the last threads of life.
00:07:07Her body was skeletal, her skin pale and stretched over sharp bones, her eyes vacant and lifeless.
00:07:14It was clear to anyone who saw her that she had endured unimaginable torment, and less than 24 hours
00:07:20later, she died. She had succumbed to the abuse, to the starvation, to the unbearable cruelty that had
00:07:26defined her final months. Following the death of his wife, Louis Staunton arranged for the body to be
00:07:32buried. At the St George's Church in Beckenham in Kent, he believed her death would go unquestioned.
00:07:38She had been ill, frail and isolated, and her decline, though tragic, to him seemed quite natural.
00:07:45There was no reason for anyone to suspect that something more sinister had taken place,
00:07:50but as is often the case in such matters, whispers of doubt began to spread. Those who had seen Harriet
00:07:56before she had died, had noted her skeletal frame, and the way she seemed more ghost than woman. They
00:08:02were unable to reconcile her condition as a death attributed to natural causes, and rumours of
00:08:07mistreatment began to circulate, raising questions about the circumstances of her final days. A gentleman
00:08:14told the police that he had bumped into Mr. Louis Staunton, while he was inquiring about the process for
00:08:20recording his wife's death, he said that although this encounter was brief, there was something
00:08:25about Mr. Staunton's manner that unsettled him. The gentleman claimed that he was speaking with
00:08:29detachment, something that seemed odd for a man who had so recently lost his wife and son. Following
00:08:35this, and after speaking with hospital staff, and others familiar with the Staunton's, the coroner
00:08:41grew increasingly uneasy about the true cause of Harriet's death. Concerned that something had been
00:08:46overlooked, he took the decisive step in halting the funeral to allow for a post-mortem examination to
00:08:52be conducted. When the pathologist opened the coffin, those present were met with a harrowing
00:08:58sight. Any doubts about the nature of her death quickly faded. Harriet's hair was matted and infested
00:09:03with lice, clear evidence of the neglect that she had endured. Her heart and liver were also very much
00:09:09smaller from that of a healthy 36-year-old female. The initial cause of death was dismissed and replaced
00:09:16with a far more chilling verdict, starvation and neglect. At the time of her death, she weighed just
00:09:22five stone and four pounds or 34 kilos. Her body wasted away from prolonged mistreatment. An inquest was
00:09:30arranged to be held at the Park Tavern Public House. Here, Mr. Staunton told the coroner that before his wife
00:09:37died,
00:09:37she had become increasingly dependent on alcohol and had developed a troubling habit of refusing to eat.
00:09:43He described how her health had deteriorated over time, her body weakening and her appetite all but
00:09:49vanishing. The pathologist's evidence, however, revealed a different story. Despite Mrs. Staunton's
00:09:54claims, no traces of excessive alcohol were found, but there was a deep redness in her tissues. Suggesting
00:10:01the presence of irritant poisoning, the pathologist had expected to find a toxin but could identify no
00:10:07natural explanation for the strange discoloration. In his view, the immediate cause of death was
00:10:13starvation. Moving her frail body would have caused a fatal shock to her system. When pressed further,
00:10:19the doctor confirmed that her conditions seemed more consistent with poisoning than natural causes.
00:10:24He said that any poison would likely have been administered gradually rather than in a sudden dose.
00:10:30He added that Harriet appeared weak, as if her life had been draining from her for some time.
00:10:35Other witnesses confirmed her extreme frailty. Railway station workers testified that she was not
00:10:41strong enough to even step on the carriage without help. When travelling to hospital, when it was a
00:10:47defence counsel's turn to speak, the lawyer, Mr. Douglas Straight, announced that he would not be
00:10:53calling any witnesses. The room fell into a heavy silence. There would be no argument, no defence, only the
00:11:00grim, inscapable truth. By the time the inquest ended, the jury believed that Louis Patrick and Elizabeth
00:11:07Staunton, along with Alice Rhodes, were guilty of murdering Harriet Staunton, and they were remanded in
00:11:13custody to await their trial. While in prison, both Elizabeth and Alice gave birth.
00:11:20The trial began on Wednesday 19th September 1877, at the Old Bailey, and presiding over the proceedings
00:11:27was Judge Henry Hawkins. Known for his sharp wit and unyielding manner, the trial was a spectacle,
00:11:34drawing crowds from all corners of London. Fashionable ladies, draped in their finest silks and furs,
00:11:39arrived not to mourn the tragic fate of Harriet Staunton. But to look at the accused, they peered through
00:11:45opera glasses, their expression shifting between fascination and revulsion, as if they were
00:11:51spectators at the theatre, rather than witnessing a murder trial. Many witnesses who gave evidence at
00:11:56the inquest, also gave evidence at the trial, and the prosecution painted a grim picture of Harriet's
00:12:02final months. The isolation, the starvation, and the violence that she endured at the hands of those
00:12:08meant to care for her. But the defence, led by the formidable barrister Edward Clarke, fought to shift
00:12:15the argument, claiming that the death of Harriet Staunton was not the result of a calculated scheme,
00:12:20or intentional deprivation of food. Instead, they contended that her passing was due to a medical
00:12:26condition that had caused her body to gradually waste away. The defence emphasised that her extreme
00:12:32weight loss was a symptom of the illness, rather than evidence of mistreatment or neglect, and sought
00:12:38to persuade the jury that there was no malicious intent involved in her decline. Edward Clarke stood up,
00:12:44and said that the deteriorating health of the deceased, had a natural cause, beyond the control of the
00:12:49accused. A key witness was Miss Clara Brown, a cousin of the two female defendants, who gave testimony for more
00:12:56than
00:12:57six hours. Having lived at the house, she provided a detailed account of the living conditions. She stated that
00:13:04Harriet had often complained about not receiving enough food, and had appeared to grow weak over time. She also said
00:13:10that
00:13:10although there was a fireplace in the deceased bedroom, she only remembered one fire being lit between
00:13:15Christmas and April, before the poor lady passed away. Mary Ann Weatherly was another witness. She told the
00:13:22court that she lived in Knockholt, and that her father was a coal dealer. She said that she knew the
00:13:27house where
00:13:27Patrick and Elizabeth Staunton lived, and had often delivered butter there. She said that on Christmas day,
00:13:33she went there with a girl named Miss Mary Ann Longridge, and found that Mr. and Mrs. Patrick Staunton were
00:13:38away.
00:13:38She said that she was greeted by Miss Clara Brown, who led her into the kitchen. But then,
00:13:44suddenly she heard footsteps, and Miss Clara immediately went to the kitchen door and shut it,
00:13:49and called out, Go back, ma'am. Miss Weatherly said that she had not been aware that another lady was
00:13:54living in the house with a child. This statement was confirmed by Mary Ann Longridge, the girl who had
00:14:00been with Miss Weatherly. Mrs. Elizabeth Staunton was deeply troubled by the accusations that both she and
00:14:06her husband faced. She attributed their predicament to weakness in their own actions, but she firmly
00:14:12stated to the court that she had never intentionally kept Harriet Staunton without food. She said that
00:14:18Harriet had free access to the house, and could help herself to anything in the cupboards, especially
00:14:23when she and her husband were away. She denied ever instructing Clara Brown to refuse food to the
00:14:29deceased, or control her movements inside the house. Mr. G, who was representing Alice Rhodes,
00:14:35insisted that his client had never exhibited any cruelty or neglect towards Harriet Staunton.
00:14:41In fact, he argued that Alice had consistently shown kindness and concern for the deceased,
00:14:46and had played no role in any alleged wrongdoing, and should therefore not be implicated in the tragic
00:14:51outcome. He urged the jury to recognize that her actions were not those of someone complicit to harm,
00:14:56but were rather of a person who had treated Miss Harriet Staunton with care and compassion.
00:15:01But the jury were not convinced. After deliberation, they returned with a unanimous verdict,
00:15:07guilty. All four defendants were then sentenced to death by hanging. The decision settled heavily
00:15:13over the courtroom. Patrick Staunton seemed quite shaken, while his brother Louis sat completely
00:15:18still, his face blank, his gaze fixed on some distant point, as if struggling to comprehend what
00:15:24had just been said. Outside the courtroom, a dense fog surrounded the crowd, but the cold did little to
00:15:31deter them. When the news of the verdict reached their ears, an eruption of cheers filled the air. They
00:15:37believed that justice had been served. Judge Hawkins, in his final remarks, did nothing to temper the
00:15:43outrage. He declared the crime to be one of the most hideous on record, condemning the barbarity and
00:15:50incredible cruelty that had led to Harriet's suffering and her death. Yet as the public celebrated,
00:15:55not everyone accepted the verdict. A letter soon appeared in the medical journal The Lancet, signed by 700
00:16:03physicians, decrying how the court had disregarded expert medical testimony. There were also murmurs of
00:16:09judicial bias. With many believing that the judge had steered the trial against the accused from the
00:16:14outset, the case caught the attention of the celebrated novelist Charles Reed, who led a campaign to get the
00:16:20decision overturned. When Elizabeth Staunton was interviewed in prison, she acknowledged that the
00:16:26defense counsel had done their best during the trial, but thought that they had not been adequately
00:16:30prepared. She felt that if they had been able to ask Clara Brown a few pointed questions, it would have
00:16:36entirely changed the course of the case. Mrs. Staunton didn't believe that Clara was a bad person, but
00:16:42suspected that she had been influenced by Mrs. Butterfield and may have been offered a better position
00:16:47or some other incentive to answer questions in court the way she did. Mrs. Staunton expressed no great fondness
00:16:54for Mrs. Butterfield, but denied the harsh comments attributed to her and Louis Staunton by the cabman who
00:17:00took Mrs. Butterfield to the house in March 1877. She said that they would have allowed the lady to see
00:17:06Harriet's if she hadn't been so violent and abusive towards them. She added that after Mrs. Butterfield left,
00:17:13she told her husband that it might have been better if they had let her see her daughter.
00:17:18When asked to explain why she hadn't sent for a doctor when she realized Harriet was ill,
00:17:23Mrs. Staunton explained that at first she didn't believe that the illness was serious.
00:17:27She then said in a somewhat regretful manner that they didn't want to call the local doctor because
00:17:32it would reveal that her sister Alice Rhodes, who was living at Little Grey's, was not in fact Louis' wife.
00:17:38And of course, they did not want this known in the neighborhood. Mrs. Staunton stated that in the
00:17:44last three or four days of Harriet's life, they'd tried to feed her beef tea, gruel or anything that
00:17:50was easy to swallow. She said that they did everything they could for her, but did admit that in the
00:17:54past,
00:17:55she had been indifferent towards the deceased comfort and health, but said that she had no ill intent
00:18:00toward her. She went on to say that she found it ridiculous that people would think that they would
00:18:06have treated Harriet in that way, especially considering they gave her freedom to move about
00:18:10the house. Eventually the home secretary intervened. Alice Rhodes was pardoned and released, and the
00:18:17sentences of the remaining three were commuted to life imprisonment. The outcome however was far from
00:18:22merciful. Patrick Staunton did not live to see the outside of a prison cell again and died behind bars.
00:18:28His wife Elizabeth fared better. She was released in 1883 and then faded into obscurity. Louis Staunton,
00:18:35the man at the center of it all, remained in prison until 1897. However, upon his release,
00:18:42he never admitted guilt and wanting to seek a fresh start, far from the shadow of his past,
00:18:48he left England behind and emigrated to Australia. Although some believe that the Staunton's were
00:18:54innocent victims of a grave miscarriage of justice, others see their actions as calculated cruelty.
00:19:00Whatever the truth behind the deaths of Harriet and her baby Thomas Henry,
00:19:04Patrick, Louis and Elizabeth Staunton, along with Alice Rhodes, would be names forever linked to one
00:19:10of the most shocking cases of neglect and mistreatments Victorian England ever witnessed.
00:19:18For case number two, we go to Australia.
00:19:22In 1830, John Hereford, like many others seeking a fresh start, arrived in the colony of Western Australia.
00:19:29At the time, the colony was still in its early stages. Having been established a year earlier,
00:19:35in 1829, it was a land of opportunity for many, though it was also harsh and isolated. Originally
00:19:42founded as a penal settlement to house convicts sent from Britain to serve their sentences,
00:19:47much of the land remained rugged and had never previously been farmed, ensuring that the small
00:19:52population of free settlers had to depend on one another as they worked to carve out a life in the
00:19:58wilderness and face the challenges of an unfamiliar and unforgiving environment. While Mr Hereford was
00:20:04drawn by the promise of fertile land and agricultural wealth, the arrival of Europeans also brought
00:20:09significant disruption to the native Australian people of the region who had lived in the area for
00:20:14thousands of years. They now found their way of life threatened, as the land that had sustained them for
00:20:20generations was now being claimed by newcomers. While settlers like Mr Hereford worked to build their futures in
00:20:27Western Australia, the indigenous people faced the devastating loss of their ancestral lands and the
00:20:32growing threat to their culture and way of life. During the 1830s, migration to the region from Europe
00:20:38significantly increased, as settlers braved perilous sea voyages in search of opportunities to build a
00:20:44new life for themselves and their families. The colony offered fertile soil, abundant resources and a
00:20:51chance to stake a claim in a promising future. John quickly established himself and was granted 400 acres of
00:20:58land in Augusta, where he worked tirelessly to develop his holding. Later, he expanded his estate by
00:21:04purchasing an additional 100 acres at Wannerup Inlet near Busselton. Through years of effort and
00:21:10perseverance, he turned his land into a thriving enterprise. By the age of 60, he had assumed a
00:21:17fortune of 2,000 pounds, a considerable sum for the time, symbolizing his success in the face of adversity.
00:21:24In 1851, seeking some sort of companionship and stability in his later years, John married a woman
00:21:30named Bridget Larkin. She was a widow, and her life had not been easy. Her first husband had tragically
00:21:37drowned, leaving her to raise six children on her own. For John, this marriage was a chance to share his
00:21:43life and wealth with someone, and for Bridget, it offered security and the promise of a stable home.
00:21:49However, the marriage quickly proved to be anything but harmonious. Bridget's temper and abusive behavior
00:21:55became a source of torment for John. Their arguments were fierce and often violent.
00:21:59On one occasion, John confided to a friend that Bridget had struck him during a heated dispute and
00:22:06knocked out several of his teeth. The once hopeful marriage had devolved into a hostile and unsafe
00:22:11relationship, leaving John desperate for an escape. By February 1855, he could endure no more. He left the
00:22:19matrimonial home and sought refuge as a neighbor's property. To ensure his safety, he shared a room with a
00:22:26farmhand named George Jones, who was aware of the dangers that John faced. George's presence was
00:22:32not a source of solace, but rather a necessary precaution against the threats posed by Bridget.
00:22:37John remained at the neighbor's house for six weeks, steadfast in his refusal to return home. During this
00:22:43time, he purchased another property, intending to move there and live independently from his wife. However,
00:22:50in late March 1855, before he could make the transition, he was forced to return to his
00:22:55matrimonial home due to overcrowding at the neighbor's residence. Reluctantly, he resumed living under the
00:23:02same roof as Bridget's, but he insisted that George Jones accompany him. John's fear of being alone with
00:23:08his wife was so profound that he refused to sleep without George nearby. On the evening of Saturday,
00:23:14the 8th of April 1855, John was unwell. He complained of a cold, soreness and fatigue, and it seemed like
00:23:21his health was deteriorating. In an unusual gesture of care, Bridget offered him a cup of mulled wine,
00:23:27which he accepted. She then sent word to George Jones, informing him that John wanted to sleep alone
00:23:32that night due to his illness. For some reason, Bridget also sent her daughter away, which left the
00:23:38house eerily quiet. The following morning, Monday the 9th of April, George Jones went to check on John,
00:23:45hoping that his condition had improved overnight. However, what he found was far from what he expected.
00:23:51John was lying in bed, the sheet pulled up to his face, as though he had been trying to keep
00:23:56warm,
00:23:56or shield himself from something. But as George drew closer, he noticed the unsettling stillness of John's
00:24:02body. His eyes were wide open, slightly bulging, and his expression was locked in a haunting
00:24:08combination of shock and pain, as if frozen in the final moments of his life. George's heart sank,
00:24:14as he looked at the man he had helped so much over the previous two months. He noticed that there
00:24:19was
00:24:19faint red marks on both sides of his neck. These marks were not easily visible at first glance,
00:24:25but they were there, two thin, almost symmetrical lines, that seemed to suggest something far more
00:24:31sinister than a simple illness. As he looked at the dead man, the house, that had for so long been
00:24:37marked by constant tension and discord between John Hereford and his wife, now felt ominously cold.
00:24:43As word of the sudden and untimely death spread, the small community became consumed with speculation.
00:24:50Neighbours exchanged hushed whispers, trying to piece together the events leading up to his demise.
00:24:55Many were well aware of the troubled and often volatile relationship that John had shared with his wife.
00:25:00Her fiery temper and history of violent outbursts were no secrets, and her treatment of her husband had
00:25:06been a topic of quiet concern for some time. Mr. Hereford was no longer a young man, and his health
00:25:12had been faltering for a while. He had complained of fatigue and a lingering cold, ailments not uncommon for
00:25:18a man of his age. Some in the community suggested that his death could simply have been the result of
00:25:23natural causes. However, there were others who found it difficult to dismiss the circumstances
00:25:28surrounding his passing. Bridget's reputation preceded her, and her lack of care and compassion
00:25:33toward her husband was well known. While she had never been regarded as a particularly loving wife,
00:25:39the idea that she might have played a direct role in his death was almost too shocking for many to
00:25:44accept.
00:25:45Still, there were those who couldn't ignore the particular details. Why had Bridget sent her
00:25:50daughter away that evening? Why had she insisted that Mr. Hereford sleep alone, breaking from the
00:25:55usual arrangement where George Jones shared his room for protection, and what of the faint red
00:26:00marks on his neck that were noticed by George Jones the next morning? These questions lingered,
00:26:06unsettling the minds of those who knew the couple. An inquest into the death was promptly convened.
00:26:12Led by the local coroner, Dr. Hannibal Bryan presented his findings to the courts. He testified with
00:26:18confidence that there had been nothing suspicious about Mr. John Hereford's passing, and his death
00:26:23had been likely due to his recent illness and his age. The evidence seemed clear, and the coroner
00:26:29delivered a verdict of death by natural causes. For some, the verdict brought relief, but others
00:26:35remained unconvinced. Those familiar with the troubled Hereford household found it hard to dismiss
00:26:40their suspicions. Bridget Hereford, however, seemed unaffected by the gossip that surrounded her.
00:26:46However, the coroner's verdict stood, and following her husband's funeral, probate of his will was
00:26:51granted in favour of his wife. Content that she was now a wealthy widow, Bridget continued life as
00:26:57normal, offering no outward signs of concern or acknowledgements of the rumours concerning her
00:27:03husband's passing. The details surrounding Mr. John Hereford's death lingered in the minds of
00:27:10neighbours and friends, especially those who had been very familiar with the strained and often hostile
00:27:15relationship between the couple. When Bridget went to the local shop, she would see women talking and
00:27:21quickly stop as she passed by. She was aware of the gossip and local whispers, and that some people
00:27:27treated her with suspicion. Yet the coroner had concluded that her husband had died of natural
00:27:31causes, and as far as she was concerned, the case was closed. Later that year, however, new information
00:27:38surfaced, prompting the authorities to reopen the investigation. Colonel Bruce and Dr. Galbraith were
00:27:44appointed to lead the inquiry, and they ordered that Mr. Hereford's body be exhumed for further
00:27:49examination. Mrs. Hereford was questioned, and the authorities turned their attention to two men,
00:27:56Mr. Enoch Dodd and Mr. Philip Dixon, both who had been involved in the Hereford household.
00:28:01As ticket of leave men, they were convicts, who had served part of their sentences, and had been
00:28:07granted conditional freedom, allowing them to live and work in the colony under strict supervision.
00:28:12Colonel Bruce and Dr. Galbraith sought to investigate the involvement of these two men
00:28:17more thoroughly. Philip Dixon soon became a key figure in the investigation. He confessed to having
00:28:23forged Mr. Hereford's will, altering it to benefit Mrs. Hereford, but that was not all. He also admitted that
00:28:29his involvement extended beyond the forgery, and provided crucial information about the night of
00:28:34the murder. He claimed that he had seen Mrs. Hereford and Mr. Dodd together on the evening of
00:28:39the 8th of April, and said that Mrs. Hereford had manipulated Mr. Dodd into committing the crime.
00:28:44The testimony painted a clear picture of greed and manipulation, as it seemed that Mrs. Hereford had
00:28:50orchestrated the murder in order to secure her financial future. Following this, Mr. Enoch Dodd and Mrs.
00:28:56Bridgett Hereford were arrested, and charged with murder.
00:29:02Their trial began on the 3rd of October 1855, before the Judge W. H. Mackay. The courtroom was
00:29:09packed, as the sensational nature of the case had drawn widespread public interest. The Advocate General,
00:29:15in his opening remarks, emphasized the seriousness of the crime, particularly because the victim was a
00:29:21man who was showing his years due to his life of hard work and toil. He also highlighted the
00:29:26severity of the accusations against the female prisoner, who he said that due to her relationship
00:29:32with the victim, made her actions even more appalling. The jury was cautioned against being
00:29:37influenced by petty suspicions, local gossip, or vague rumors, and was urged to approach their duty with
00:29:44clear minds and a sense of justice. Dr. Hannibal Bryan was called to testify. He stated that he had not
00:29:50observed the strangulation marks on Mr. Hereford's neck during his initial examination. However, under
00:29:56intense cross-examination by the Crown, his credibility was severely undermined. He admitted
00:30:02that he had never passed a formal medical examination and was unable to explain the proper use of a stethoscope.
00:30:07This cast much doubt on the reliability of his initial findings.
00:30:11On the second day of the trial, the case took a shocking turn. Mrs. Hereford, perhaps overcome by the
00:30:18mounting evidence and weight of guilt, admitted that she had prior knowledge of the murder and was aware
00:30:23that it had been committed. She implicated another person, a man named Mr. Osborne, stating that together
00:30:29they had plotted to kill her husband. She said that initially, they planned to ambush him while he was
00:30:34crossing the estuary, and then drown him. She said that her and Mr. Osborne abandoned this,
00:30:39for reasons she did not disclose. She went on to say that Mr. Osborne then left the area,
00:30:44and she then thought that it would be best if the crime was carried out in her house.
00:30:49Looking at the jury, she told how she had married her husband four years prior, and that she was many
00:30:54years younger than him. She went on to say that her marriage had always been marked by constant quarrels,
00:30:59to the extent that Mr. Hereford often slept away from their home. Telling her that it was to avoid
00:31:04her harassment, she added that he had even purchased a house in a different location,
00:31:09and he had planned to move into it on Monday the 9th of April, although she did not say what
00:31:14actually
00:31:14happened on the night. It was claimed that the Friday before the murder, Mr. Hereford rode to the
00:31:19town of Vass, and when he returned home, he was complaining of fatigue. So she told him to rest.
00:31:25She said that two days later, she prepared him a drink that would help him recover.
00:31:29However, she added that following this offer of help, he looked at her quite intently,
00:31:34which made her nervous. She admitted to the court that she sent a message to Mr. George Jones,
00:31:40and arranged for her daughter to sleep elsewhere, leaving her alone with her husband,
00:31:45which under cross-examination she admitted was highly unusual. Some witnesses stated that they observed
00:31:51suspicious activity at the Hereford home on the night of the 8th of April, some said they heard
00:31:56noises, including a sound from Mr. Hereford's room, which sounded like he was choking. One witness
00:32:03claimed to have seen Mrs. Hereford making splashing noises with a bucket of water, which he now felt
00:32:07was done possibly to mask other sounds coming from the house. Mr. George Jones told the courts,
00:32:14that on Monday the 9th of April, he discovered Mr. Hereford dead in his room. He said that his body
00:32:19showed signs of strangulation, with finger marks on his neck and swelling on his throat. With evidence
00:32:25mounting against Mr. Dodds, he eventually confessed to his involvement in Mr. Hereford's death.
00:32:30He explained that on the fateful night, Mrs. Hereford had encouraged him to commit the crime.
00:32:36By promising him £10 and a horse as a reward, he said that he was initially hesitant and uneasy,
00:32:42but that Mrs. Hereford urged him on, and even provided him with alcohol to calm his nerves.
00:32:46He admitted that he ultimately strangled Mr. Hereford in his own bed, while Mrs. Hereford created
00:32:52distractions by making noise. The marks found on the deceased man's neck during the second
00:32:57post-mortem examination matched Mr. Dodds' description, which further corroborated his accounts.
00:33:03These confessions, combined with the forged will, painted a damning picture of a woman,
00:33:08driven by ambition, and to add a complete disregard for her husband's life.
00:33:12When the jury was sent out to deliberate, they soon returned to find both Enoch Dodds and Bridget
00:33:18Hereford guilty of murder. The judge then delivered a sentence of death by hanging,
00:33:23and the execution was scheduled for the following Monday. The sentence marked a grim milestone,
00:33:29as Bridget Hereford would become the first woman to be executed by the state in Western Australia.
00:33:34Philip Dixon, who had forged Mr. Hereford's will in favour of his wife, was charged with conspiracy.
00:33:40He pleaded guilty, and received a sentence of transportation to Van Diemen's land,
00:33:46which is modern-day Tasmania. For the remainder of his life, the executions of Bridget Hereford
00:33:51and Enoch Dodd reverberated throughout the colony, leaving an indelible mark on its history.
00:33:57The case, marked by betrayal, manipulation and greed, cast a shadow over the young settlement,
00:34:03standing as a sombre testament to the unforgiving nature of justice in the early days of Western Australia.
00:34:11For case number three, we go to the USA.
00:34:16Francis Kelly was born in 1866, in Harrison County in Indiana, a region of rolling farmland,
00:34:23limestone hills, and small tight-knit communities. Life in rural Indiana during the 1870s was simple
00:34:31and hard-working. Most families made their living from the land, and children were expected to
00:34:36contribute early, whether in the fields or around the home. Towns like Croydon and New Albany were
00:34:42modest but growing, and the Ohio River provided a natural border and a vital trade route for goods
00:34:48and people. Francis grew up in this landscape as a straightforward, determined country boy.
00:34:55Though he had little formal education, he was sharp-minded and eager to make his own way.
00:35:00He was also deeply trusting by nature, someone who took people at their word, and rarely questioned
00:35:07their intentions. At the age of 16, driven by a desire for independence, and perhaps a touch of
00:35:15restlessness, Francis left home and found work on a nearby farm, which was owned by a man named Mr.
00:35:21Evans. The pay was minimal, more board and lodging than wages, but he stuck with it for a year. Before
00:35:27deciding that he wanted something more, he left the farm, and travelled to the nearby city of New
00:35:33Albany, hoping to find better prospects. There he took a job in a rolling mill, a common but gruelling
00:35:39line of work, in the industrialising mid-west. Yet after only three days, amid the noise, heat,
00:35:47and endless labour of the mill, he knew it wasn't the life for him. With very little money, and nowhere
00:35:53to
00:35:53stay, Francis wandered along the banks of the Ohio River, where boats came and went. He watched the
00:36:00workers unloading cargo, and the fishermen repairing their nets. As he sat wondering what he should do,
00:36:06he encountered a man named Richard Taylor Arnett, a river trader, who lived aboard a modest boat,
00:36:12with a woman he introduced as his wife. She was in fact his mistress, and her name was Lucinda Hornbrook.
00:36:19After talking for a while, Mr Arnett asked Francis if he would like to join him in his trading venture,
00:36:25and payment would be a share of the profits. He painted a picture of life along the river,
00:36:31drifting from town to town, making a living through fishing and selling goods. He also mentioned that
00:36:38they would take on occasional jobs along the shore, adding a sense of variety and purpose to their travels.
00:36:43The prospect of such a lifestyle felt like a good opportunity to Francis, a chance to break free
00:36:50from the confines of his previous life. He could now earn his living, and establish his own path.
00:36:55He told Mr Arnett that he would accept his offer, as it promised freedom and adventure.
00:37:01The boat drifted down the river Toronto, Indiana, where Mr Arnett decided to open a grocery store,
00:37:07which was really more of a river saloon, and he made Francis his clerk. Mr Arnett couldn't read or
00:37:13write, so he relied on Francis, who though his formal education had been limited, was competent at
00:37:19both mathematics and English. These skills allowed him to handle the store's transactions and correspondence
00:37:25with ease, and in return, Mr Arnett promised him better wages than he would be able to earn elsewhere.
00:37:32Things went smoothly for a while, but one day, when Mr Arnett was away, some men came aboard the boats,
00:37:38and Francis sold them whisky for five cents a drink, instead of the usual ten. When Mr Arnett found out,
00:37:45he became furious, and threatened to shoot the young man, if it ever happened again.
00:37:50As they continued on the river, they arrived in Alton, and stopped there for about a month.
00:37:55Mr Arnett's supposed wife had become tired of life on the boats, and she abruptly left,
00:38:02announcing that she was going to see her father, who was a farmer named Buckner Hornbrook, who lived
00:38:08in LaRue County. Following this, they sailed back to Rono in Spencer County, but business began to slow,
00:38:15and Francis was getting tired of life on the boats. He told Mr Arnett that he wanted to leave,
00:38:21and go back to working on a farm. He then asked for his share of the profits. Mr Arnett, however,
00:38:27was not about to let his clerk suddenly leave, and refused to pay him. He also threatened him,
00:38:33saying that if Francis ever left, or revealed anything about their business, he would find him,
00:38:39no matter where he went, and kill him. These threats seemed serious, which left young Francis in a
00:38:46state of constant fear. Shortly after, Mr Arnett left the boat for several days, claiming that he
00:38:52was going to marry Lucinda. However, when he returned, Lucinda was not with him. He gave no
00:38:58clear explanation, and from that point on, something in his demeanour shifted. He became increasingly
00:39:05irritable, prone to angry outbursts, and began directing his frustrations towards Francis. He often
00:39:12cursed at him without cause, and issued veiled threats that grew more unsettling by the day.
00:39:18Despite this, they continued travelling down the Ohio River, stopping at small river towns and
00:39:24fishing ports, earning just enough to get by. Their routine was loose and unpredictable. Some days they
00:39:31made good money, others they barely scraped through. Eventually, they moored in Grandview, Indiana, about
00:39:37six miles from Rockport. The area was remote, with dense woods hugging the bank, and the occasional
00:39:44homestead visible through the trees. One afternoon, Mr Arnett went ashore, saying that he was going to
00:39:51buy some ammunition so he could go hunting, and left Francis alone on the boat. While he was away,
00:39:57several local men came aboard, looking for a drink. Despite his earlier misgivings, Francis poured
00:40:04whiskey for five cents a glass, something he had done before, but which Mr Arnett had
00:40:09began to treat as a serious offence. As the sun sank low over the water, Francis grew increasingly
00:40:15anxious. He remembered Mr Arnett's previous threats. When he had sold whiskey for five cents a glass,
00:40:22he considered fleeing, but fear held him back. He recalled that Mr Arnett had once warned him,
00:40:28that if he ever tried to run, he'd hunt him down and kill him.
00:40:34When Mr Arnett returned that evening, he immediately asked if Francis had sold any
00:40:39whiskey in his absence. Francis admitted that he had, but didn't say how much he'd charged.
00:40:45Mr Arnett made no comment, which only heightened the young man's anxiety. Knowing that he had purchased
00:40:51ammunition, Francis began to suspect that Mr Arnett intended to carry out his earlier threats.
00:40:57By now he had already packed his things in secret and was looking for the right moment to escape.
00:41:03That night, both Mr Arnett and Francis went into town. They returned together, and Mr Arnett said that
00:41:11he was tired and was going to sleep. He then instructed Francis to steer the boats, but the
00:41:16tension hadn't eased. Alone at the helm, Francis couldn't shake off the fear that the older man would
00:41:23wake in a rage when he learned how cheaply the whiskey had been sold. He imagined the scene,
00:41:28Mr Arnett shouting, reaching for a weapon, and then perhaps shooting him without a second thought.
00:41:35Driven by fear, Francis made a decision. He let go of the rudder, and crept into the cabin. There he
00:41:41opened the small safe, where he knew a loaded pistol was kept. He quietly took it out. He then looked
00:41:48at
00:41:48Mr Arnett, who lay on his side, his back turned, and murmuring faintly in his sleep. Francis raised
00:41:56the gun, his hand shaking, and he fired a single shot in the back of the defenseless man's head.
00:42:03Mr Arnett made a groaning noise, so Francis, now very scared, fired twice more in order to make sure
00:42:11that he was dead. After the shooting, he stood over the body, in the dim, swaying cabin. The reality of
00:42:18what he'd done had not fully settled in, and acting just on instinct, he reached into the dead man's
00:42:24pockets, and took out all of his money. There was just over $150 in cash. Then he gathered both pistols
00:42:32from the boat, along with his small travel bag. What came next was a desperate attempt to erase what
00:42:38has happened. Francis fetched a lantern, lit it, and threw it into a pile of firewood on the deck.
00:42:45Flames caught quickly, crackling through the dry boards. He then climbed into the dinghy, and began
00:42:51to row away, just as the boat was overtaken by fire. He had no idea if the blaze would conceal
00:42:57the
00:42:58evidence, only the hope that it might. Not long after, Francis Kelly reached the shore at Rockport.
00:43:04He quietly pulled the dinghy up under the cover of darkness, and walked into town. He was just a
00:43:11seventeen-year-old boy, so wandered about unnoticed. He spent the night near the train depot, lying low,
00:43:18keeping out of sight, and trying to think about what to do next. The following morning, he bought a
00:43:24train ticket to Evansville, hoping to put some distance between himself and the burned boats,
00:43:29that he thought must be drifting in embers behind him. From there he transferred to another line,
00:43:34bound for Kim Mundy in Illinois. This was the destination where he thought he would go before
00:43:39he met Mr Arnett. For the time being, it seemed like a safe place to vanish, a quiet town, far
00:43:46from
00:43:47the banks of the Ohio River. In Kim Mundy, he sought refuge of the local farmer named Mr Boggs, who
00:43:53was
00:43:54married to a woman Francis had once known. However, back in Rockport, the truth had began to emerge.
00:44:00On the morning of the 29th of September 1883, a smouldering wreck was found drifting near the
00:44:06riverbank. It was a badly burnt trading boat, which was floating near the water's edge. Amid the charred
00:44:13debris, authorities discovered the remains of a man, his body very badly burnt, but still intact enough
00:44:20for identification. And soon it was confirmed that the deceased man was Mr Richard Taylor Arnett.
00:44:26At first, the cause of death wasn't clear. The damage from the fire had made any assumptions difficult.
00:44:32But after the remains were examined, it was determined that the man had been shot in the head,
00:44:37with at least one bullet wound clearly visible despite the burns. This revelation transformed what
00:44:44might have looked like an accidental fire into something far more sinister, a murder.
00:44:52An investigation began, and it soon came to light that another man had been travelling on board the
00:44:57boat, and his name was Francis J Kelly, a young drifter, who was now nowhere to be found.
00:45:04His absence deepened suspicions, and soon he was the focus of a growing manhunt.
00:45:09The case quickly got the attention of the local press, who called it one of the worst crimes Spencer
00:45:15County had ever seen. Following this, public interest surged, and Detective Hales was assigned to the
00:45:21case, and immediately set to work tracing the steps of the missing young man. Meanwhile, after a short
00:45:28stay at the farm of Mr Boggs, Francis had moved on to a farm owned by a man named Mr
00:45:33Graham. To both
00:45:34families, he gave carefully edited versions of events. He said that he had recently left a
00:45:40dangerous employer, and had been drifting from job to job along the river. He never spoke of the
00:45:45shooting, or the burning boats, as far as they knew. He was just another young man, looking for
00:45:51honest work. However, unbeknown to Francis, Mrs Boggs had written a letter to a friend back in Harrison
00:45:57County, casually mentioning that Francis was working on a neighbouring farm. The letter eventually reached his
00:46:04family in New Albany, and whispers of suspicion began to circulate. It was rumoured that he might
00:46:10have been involved in Mr Arnett's death. In an effort to protect his son, Mr Kelly, Francis' father,
00:46:17issued a public denial. He told the local newspaper that his son was in Kentucky, and that he had recently
00:46:23heard from him. He did this in the hope that it would quell the speculation, but the denial had the
00:46:29opposite effect. The statement caught the attention of Marshal Hales, who was still hot on the trail.
00:46:35Reading the article, he travelled to New Albany to speak to the family, and gather further information.
00:46:41His timing proved fortunate. Just as he arrived, new information had surfaced, that pointed directly
00:46:48to Francis Kelly's whereabouts. Without delay, the Marshal departed for Kin Monday. Marshal Hales
00:46:55eventually tracked Francis down in Ashley, Illinois. There he placed him under arrest. Francis was very
00:47:01cooperative, and went willingly with the Marshal on the afternoon train back to Rockport. There the
00:47:07young man made a statement to the authorities. He insisted that he had not killed Mr Arnett for money.
00:47:13He said that the man owed him wages, from their time working and travelling together, and he claimed not
00:47:19to have acted out of greed. But out of fear, he said that they had never had a written contract,
00:47:24or clear agreement, and he had worked on verbal promises that had not been fulfilled, and stayed
00:47:30on board the boat working, due to the threats that had increased as the weeks passed. The shooting,
00:47:36he maintained, was a desperate act of a frightened 17-year-old, not a cold-blooded killer. Nevertheless,
00:47:43Francis Kelly was charged with murder.
00:47:48The trial of Francis J Kelly began on the 25th October 1883 in Rockport. There the young man openly admitted
00:47:56to having shot and killed Mr Richard Taylor Arnett, but entered a plea of not guilty, claiming that he had
00:48:02acted in self-defence. His explanation echoed the story that he had told upon his arrest,
00:48:08that he feared for his life following a series of threats that had been made by Mr Arnett. During
00:48:14their time travelling together on the river, the court appointed Judge Laird to serve as his counsel.
00:48:19The trial moved quickly. Much of the evidence presented by the prosecution merely confirmed
00:48:25what the defendant had already confessed. Witnesses were called, but their testimony did
00:48:30little to expand the facts, beyond Francis Kelly's own account.
00:48:34Among those brought to the stand were three boys who had encountered the defendant and Mr Arnett
00:48:40on the river near Grandview. They had spent time on the boat and had gone hunting with Mr Arnett.
00:48:46Each of them testified that the young man on trial was indeed the same person that they had seen
00:48:52aboard the trading boat with the deceased. In the gallery, the presence of both fathers
00:48:57lent a solemn air to the proceedings. Francis Kelly's father sat quietly, visibly worn,
00:49:03while Mr Arnett's father, who had journeyed from Hodgenville in Leroux County, Kentucky,
00:49:09listened intently to every word. When the court turned to character evidence,
00:49:13it was stated that although Mr Arnett was known to drink, and could occasionally be rough in his
00:49:18language, given to cursing, and the sort of temperamental outbursts not uncommon among the
00:49:24men who lived along the river, he was by all accounts not a violent man. Those familiar with him
00:49:30testified that he was not someone known for violence, and had never been known to do anyone
00:49:35harm. Others who had worked with him, or met him during his travels, testified that while he could
00:49:41be abrupt, he was not cruel, and nothing in his past suggested he was capable of provoking the sort
00:49:47of fear that would justify his killing. Outside the court, a small crowd lingered. The grim details of
00:49:55the case was spreading through the town, as people speculated about how the jury might interpret
00:50:00a killing supposedly committed not out of malice, but out of fear. When the trial ended,
00:50:07the jury returned a verdict of guilty, but with the recommendation for mercy. The judge,
00:50:13taking that into account, sentenced Francis Kelly to life imprisonment rather than death. In 1883,
00:50:21this was seen as significant leniency, especially for a case involving a confessed killing and an
00:50:27attempted cover-up. Some in the courtroom expressed quiet relief. Others, particularly those close to
00:50:33Mr Arnett, felt that the punishment didn't match the crime. Francis was led from the courtroom in
00:50:39silence. He had shown little emotion during the proceedings, perhaps out of shock, perhaps from
00:50:45exhaustion after weeks of fear and uncertainty. News of the verdict travelled quickly in the towns along
00:50:52the river, and people debated whether justice had truly been done for Francis. The sentence marked the
00:50:59beginning of a new kind of confinement, one far different from the drifting riverboats, but no less
00:51:04uncertain. He would spend the rest of his days in prison, far from the fields and ferry landings he had
00:51:10once known. The boat, the river, and the fire that had briefly lit up the night near Grandview, would
00:51:17fade into memory. But the story of what happened that autumn remained a cautionary tale, long after the
00:51:24courtroom had gone quiet. For case number four, we go to England. Jane Maria Cluson was born on 27 April
00:51:351854,
00:51:36in Deptford, a parish in South East London, situated on the south bank of the River Thames. The area had
00:51:43been a major shipbuilding dock. But by the time of Jane's birth, the docks were in decline, as its
00:51:49location made access difficult for the new larger ships. They were eventually closed in 1869. Her father
00:51:56named James worked in the docks, while her mother worked as a dressmaker. Jane had two sisters, one called
00:52:02Sarah, who tragically died of consumption in 1863, and a younger sister, who was named Marie. Like most
00:52:09young children in the mid-19th century, she received some education. School inspectors had been introduced,
00:52:16and in the mid-1840s, RAG schools, which were a type of volunteer-led school, had spread to London.
00:52:23These were charitable organizations, dedicated to the free education of destitute children, and were often
00:52:29attended by those who had been turned away from church schools. In 1862, Parliament also made it
00:52:35compulsory for head teachers to keep daily and weekly records of their school activity, including
00:52:40how many pupils were in attendance. When Jane was 14 years old, she started working in domestic service
00:52:47for a wealthy gentleman named Ebenezer Pook. He was from Greenwich, and the owner of a successful
00:52:52printing company. He was well-educated, and had previously worked for the Times as a tradesman
00:52:57printer. He lived in a relatively large house, with his wife named Mary, and their children. Many
00:53:04girls hoped to be able to avoid going into domestic service once they finished school. However, it was
00:53:09an industry where there was much work. By the second part of the 19th century, over four percent of the
00:53:14population was employed in service, the vast majority of them young women. Jane lived in the property,
00:53:20and shared a small attic room. One of the children of Mr Ebenezer, and Mrs Mary Pook, was named Edmund.
00:53:27He was three years older than Jane, having been born in 1851. He suffered from fits, and his mother
00:53:33did not like him to ever be left alone for very long. He was employed in his father's printing works
00:53:38at Greenwich, although he also claimed to be a music hall entertainer. Jane was very tidy, and all those
00:53:44who knew her considered her to be a conscientious, respectable, and hard-working young lady. She was
00:53:50also described as very attractive. However, it came as a shock, when just before Easter in 1871,
00:53:56she was dismissed from her employment. It was not uncommon at the time, for anyone working in domestic
00:54:01service, to be immediately dismissed for breaking house rules, or committing some other minor misdemeanor.
00:54:07Mrs Pook claimed that Jane was dismissed as she was a generally unpleasant girl, who apparently had
00:54:13already been given several warnings about her unkept appearance, and slow work. Nevertheless,
00:54:20the other staff were very surprised by Mrs Pook's decision to let her go. She went to stay at 12
00:54:25Ashburnham
00:54:25Road with her aunt, an aunt's daughter. Jane was still only 16 years old, and her birthday was just a
00:54:32few days away. It was now spring, and everyone seemed to be looking forward to the summer. The
00:54:37Royal Albert Hall had officially been opened by Queen Victoria on the 29th of March. However, despite
00:54:44the majority of the public's general feeling of contentment, the landlady named Mrs Hamilton noticed
00:54:49that Jane seemed to be in very low spirits. There were rumours amongst Mr Ebenezer Pook's staff
00:54:54that the reason Jane had been dismissed was because for some time, she had been involved in a
00:55:00relationship with Master Edmund Pook. When this came to the attention of Mrs Pook, it greatly concerned
00:55:05her. One of her sons had already married a young lady, who she considered not to be of a high
00:55:11enough
00:55:11social status, and she was determined that young Edmund would not marry beneath himself, especially
00:55:17not to a young servant girl, who had no doubt used her charms to seduce him. While Jane was living
00:55:23with
00:55:23her aunt, letters would arrive at the house, and she would immediately reply. It was believed that these
00:55:29letters were sent from Edmund. In the early evening of Tuesday the 25th of April, Jane left the house.
00:55:35She walked into Deptford High Street, accompanied by the landlady Mrs Hamilton. It was about six o'clock,
00:55:41and it was a mild evening. They chatted as they went. Mrs Hamilton became concerned that something was
00:55:47troubling Jane, although she decided not to ask her what it was. At 6.40, Jane said that she had
00:55:53to go,
00:55:54and the two ladies parted company. Jane was in fact on her way to Blackheath, where she had arranged to
00:56:00meet Edmund. She had told her aunt and cousin that they were going to go away to be married,
00:56:04and that she would return as Mrs Edmund Pook.
00:56:10In the early morning of Wednesday the 26th of April, a policeman named Constable Donald Gunn was
00:56:15walking his beat. Just before 2am, he passed through Kidbrook Lane. It seemed quite peaceful,
00:56:21and nothing attracted his attention. He passed through the lane again at 4.15, but it was still
00:56:26relatively quiet. When he walked back, he did so along the footpath, which was separated from the
00:56:32lane by a hedge. He usually did this, although the hedge was big, and it was too dark for him
00:56:37to see
00:56:38anything that may have been happening in the lane. Eventually he arrived back into Kidbrook Lane,
00:56:42where he saw a young lady on her hands and knees. She was whispering,
00:56:46Oh my poor head, my poor head. Constable Gunn asked her what had happened, but she did not reply.
00:56:52He noticed that her right cheek was covered with blood. He again tried to ask her what had happened.
00:56:58The young lady managed to say, Take hold of my hand. She then turned her head slightly,
00:57:03which enabled him to see her face. He noticed a cut on her left cheek, and blood on her forehead.
00:57:08She looked to be in a very bad way indeed. She then said, Let me die.
00:57:13The policeman observed that there were footmarks nearby, and her bonnet and gloves were on the
00:57:18floor. Aware that the young lady was in need of urgent assistance, he quickly made his way to the
00:57:24nearby Wellhall Farm, as he knew that there would be someone working at the stables at this time.
00:57:29When he arrived, he was told that Police Sergeant Haynes was also doing his rounds,
00:57:34and was just outside. He informed him of the incident, and while the sergeant went to tend the
00:57:39injured lady, Constable Gunn rushed to get a stretcher. When help arrived, the young lady
00:57:45was taken to the surgery of the local doctor named Dr. King. She was then transferred to Guy's
00:57:50Hospital. It was alleged that in the moments that she was awake, she whispered the name of Edmund Pooke
00:57:55as her assailant. The young lady, however, soon fell into a state of unconsciousness, and died in the
00:58:02evening of the 30th of April. Following her death, Dr. Michael Harris examined the body,
00:58:07and discovered that the deceased was with child. He estimated that she had been between two or three
00:58:12months pregnant. Death was attributed to blows from a sharp and a blunt object. She had deep cuts to her
00:58:18head, and there was bruising on her hands and arms, which would have been caused when she had attempted
00:58:23to defend herself. In the afternoon of the 27th of April, a gardener named Thomas Brown, who worked at
00:58:30Morden College, which was just under a mile from where the attack had happened, had picked up a plasterer's
00:58:35hammer while working in the grounds. He noticed that there was some blood on the handle, but it
00:58:40looked as if it had been washed. He later handed it to Sergeant Hodge. The sergeant then took it to
00:58:45the police station, where he gave it to Inspector Wilson. It was later passed on to Scotland Yard.
00:58:50As news spread of the attack, many people went to Kibbrook Lane. Soon, hundreds of people had
00:58:56trampled across the crime scene, and any evidence was destroyed. The police had still not identified the
00:59:01young lady. Her clothes had been displayed at the station, but no one had reported anyone missing.
00:59:07Once the attack was reported in the newspapers, a gentleman named William Trott recognised her
00:59:12description. On the 1st of May, his wife and daughter went to the authorities, and informed
00:59:17them that they thought that the young lady was her niece. They then went to Guy's Hospital, where
00:59:22Mrs Elizabeth Trott confirmed that the deceased was indeed her niece, Miss Jane Cluson. As the police
00:59:28started to investigate, they discovered that Jane had been seen with Master Edmund Pook,
00:59:33one of the sons of her former employer. Witnesses told them that they had seen them together on the
00:59:3825th of April. Other witnesses described having seen a young man matching Edmund's description,
00:59:43running from the lane that night. Detective Inspector Mulvaney from Scotland Yard,
00:59:48accompanied by Superintendent Griffin, went to the house where Jane had worked,
00:59:52at 2 London Street in Greenwich. They were met by Mr Ebenezer Pook. The inspector asked if he
00:59:58could speak to Mr Pook's son Edmund. He said that it was in relation to the death of Miss Jane
01:00:03Cluson. They asked the young man when he had last seen Jane. He replied that it was the day she
01:00:08had
01:00:09left the premises, and that he had not seen her since. The inspector then asked if he had written
01:00:13to her, which he replied that he had not. The inspector informed Edmund that people had told him
01:00:19that he had sent letters to Jane. Edmund calmly replied that he had not, and asked the inspector if he
01:00:25had the letters. The inspector said nothing. He did not have any letters written to Jane from
01:00:30Edmund. Then, somewhat strangely, Edmund suddenly said, I know nothing about her. She was a dirty young
01:00:38woman, and left here in consequence. I can account for all my nights, or time last week. I did not
01:00:44leave
01:00:44work until seven o'clock on Monday evening. On the Tuesday, I went to Lewisham to see a lady, came
01:00:50back,
01:00:51and was indoors by 9.15. Edmund's father, Mr Ebenezer Pook, seemed surprised that the officers
01:00:58were questioning his son about a possible relationship and murder of a servant girl.
01:01:02He told them that this was highly improbable, and that due to Edmund's fits, he was rarely alone in
01:01:07the house. The inspector asked to see the clothes that he had been wearing, and when he examined them,
01:01:12he noticed bloodstains on both sleeves of his shirt. Edmund explained that it was the result of him
01:01:18biting his tongue during a seizure. Superintendent Griffin then arrested him, and took him into
01:01:24police custody, on suspicion of the murder of Miss Jane Maria Cluson. Edmund then remembered that he
01:01:30had actually seen Miss Cluson on the Saturday night with a gentleman. He said that he came home and told
01:01:35his brother. Mr Ebenezer Pook requested that Edmund's brother speak to the inspector. His brother then
01:01:41confirmed the story. Nevertheless, Edmund was taken to the police station. They also took the suspect's
01:01:47clothes, knowing that they may be used as evidence. On the day of Jane's funeral, thousands of people
01:01:53turned out to see the cortage make its way from her aunt's house in Deptford to the cemetery in
01:01:59Broccoli. Flowers were thrown onto the carriage that carried her body. Unusually, the pallbearers
01:02:04were all ladies, who were dressed in maids' uniforms. She was laid to rest close to the graves of her
01:02:10mother and her older sister. The case was first heard at the coroner's court, where Edmund was
01:02:18found guilty of willful murder. A full trial was then arranged for the Central Criminal Court at the
01:02:23Old Bailey for the 10th of July. The press and the public were fascinated by the case. A young servant
01:02:29girl, dismissed by her employer, then two weeks later found murdered. Then it was discovered that she was
01:02:35pregnant when she had died, and it was alleged that the person responsible for being the father of her
01:02:40unborn child and committing the awful crime was the son of her former master. Victorian Britain had
01:02:46experienced social changes that had resulted in increased literacy rates. People had began to spend
01:02:52more money on entertainment, and along with the improvements in printing, reading newspapers was now
01:02:58considered to be a form of leisure. There had also been a growth in the sale of macabre serial
01:03:03literature, such as Penny Dreadfuls. This meant that the real-life trial of Mr. Edmund Pook was going
01:03:09to be of great public interest. Witnesses stated that they had seen a man matching the defendant,
01:03:15running from the lane that evening. One witness, named Thomas Lozell, who lived in one of the cottages
01:03:21in Kibbert Lane, knew Edmund Pook, and told the court that on the evening of Tuesday the 25th of April,
01:03:27he had seen him with a young lady. He said that the defendant was walking with his arm around her
01:03:32waist.
01:03:32He said that she was pretty, and not as tall as him. Thomas was unable to recollect what the young
01:03:38lady had been wearing. However, he did see the couple heading towards Kibbert Lane. When asked if
01:03:44he was certain that the young man he saw was Edmund Pook, he said that he was. A shopkeep confirmed
01:03:49that
01:03:50he had sold the hammer that had been found near the scene. In the days prior to the murder, he
01:03:55said that
01:03:56he had sold it to Edmund Pook. Edmund's clothes were also presented to the jury. His trousers had blood
01:04:02and mud on them, as did his shirt. The defence counsel cross-examined all the witnesses,
01:04:07and were robust in their interrogation. The police thought that Edmund Pook was guilty.
01:04:12The press were also quite unfavourable in their reporting, and seemed to believe that he had
01:04:17committed the crime. However, the judge, Sir William Beauville, was far more generous towards him.
01:04:23He ordered that Jane's last words, in which he had apparently identified the defendant
01:04:28as the person who had attacked her, were inadmissible, saying that they were no more than
01:04:32hearsay. He also criticised the police, as he considered that they were too quick to arrest the
01:04:38young man, despite having no real evidence. He said that they failed to investigate other possible
01:04:43suspects. The trial ended on the 15th of July, and the jury was sent out to deliberate. They returned
01:04:49just 20 minutes later, to find the defendant, Mr Edmund Walter Pook, not guilty. A large crowd had
01:04:57waited outside the court building on each day of the trial, and when it was announced that Edmund
01:05:01had been acquitted, the mood turned to one of anger and disappointment. There were suggestions that he
01:05:06had only escaped justice, because of his family's social status. The newspapers reported on the
01:05:12verdict. The way in which the police had handled the investigation, was the subject of an editorial in
01:05:18the Times on the 18th of July. Two days later, it was also spoken about in Parliament. Following the
01:05:24trial, a panthic was released, which claimed that Edmund was in fact responsible for the death of
01:05:29Miss Jane Cluson. Edmund, or possibly his father, instructed a lawyer to prosecute the publication
01:05:36for slander. It was a bold decision, as being a civil case, Edmund was subjected to some uncomfortable
01:05:42questioning. Despite this, he won the case, and was awarded £50 in damages. The Pook family continued
01:05:49to be the subject of local gossip, and there were many people in Deptford and Greenwich, who were of
01:05:54the opinion that Edmund was indeed guilty. References to the case would occasionally appear in the
01:05:59newspapers. The events of the 25th and the 26th of April 1871 cast a large shadow over the Pook family.
01:06:07Eventually, they decided that it would be best if they left London, and they relocated to a place where
01:06:12they would not be so easily recognised. A memorial for Jane was erected at the Broccoli Cemetery. It was paid
01:06:18for by public donations. The inscription reads, a motherless girl who was murdered in Kibbrook Lane,
01:06:24Eltham, aged 17 in 1871. Over the following years, people claimed to have seen a pretty young lady in a
01:06:31white dress, with blood dripping from her face, standing in Kibbrook Lane. Several of these reported
01:06:37sightings were by patrolling policemen. People have also claimed to have heard cries for help
01:06:42and faint sighs. When night came, there were many local residents who would avoid the lane altogether,
01:06:49fearing that they may encounter the ghost of poor Jane Marie Clewson.
01:06:55Hello everyone, and thank you so much for listening. As usual, please leave any comments or feedback you may
01:07:02have, and I hope to see you all again in the next Brief Case.
Comments