Foul Deeds in Kensington and Chelsea Page 2

  Birmingham’s trial opened on 13 June, before Mr Justice Littledale. Mr Curwood and Mr Bodkin acted for the defence whilst the case for the Crown was detailed by Mr Carrington and Mr Adolphus.

  Susan Bennett, who had by now been charged with lying at the inquest, elaborated on her story somewhat. She now claimed that a sergeant and a captain at the barracks had told her that she would be rewarded financially, but only if she confirmed Birmingham’s story that they had been together all night. Unfortunately, Miss Bennett was unable to identify either of the officers she claimed had tried to bribe her.

  Richard Tryvett told the court that he had been on Hammersmith Road at around 2.00am on 14 May, when he had seen a man and a woman arguing. He was certain that the woman was Mary Ann Waite but could not positively identify the man. The man either hit the woman, or pushed her away, whereupon she shouted, ‘Do you mean to serve me so?’ Some other conversation followed and the couple then walked off together, arm in arm. This testimony showed that, in all probability, Mary Ann was still alive at 2.00am so, if Birmingham could explain where he was at that time, he could not be guilty of murder.

  Lieutenant Ferdinand Ives of the 15th Hussars confirmed that the prisoner was his groom. Birmingham was certainly in the barracks at 11.00pm on 13 May, for at that time he helped Ives to dress for a ball he was due to attend.

  Sergeant Davidson was also in the barracks on the night in question. He stated that he had risen at 4.55am on 14 May and, just under an hour later, at 5.45am, he saw Birmingham coming down from his room. This suggested that, since otherwise Davidson would have seen him, Birmingham was in his own room by 4.55am at the latest. There was, however, one other witness who did little to help Birmingham’s defence.

  After his arrest, Birmingham had been held in the New Prison at Clerkenwell. One of his fellow prisoners there was William Lee and he now testified that during the time they were in jail together, Birmingham had confessed his guilt.

  That testimony might well have proved to be very damaging for Birmingham but fortunately the defence called two other witnesses, Richard Edwards and Samuel Gower, both officers at the prison, who testified that Lee was a habitual liar.

  The jury had a most difficult task. Susan Bennett had first provided an alibi, then admitted she had lied, but could not name the officers she claimed had tried to bribe her. Lieutenant Ives and Sergeant Davidson both claimed that Birmingham was in his barracks all night, even though he had not been seen between around 11.00pm on the 13th and some time after 4.55am on the 14th. In the event, after a very short deliberation, the jury decided that there was not enough evidence to convict and a not guilty verdict was returned.

  Twenty-two-year-old Thomas Birmingham was a free man. The murder of Mary Ann Waite remains unsolved to this day.

  Chapter 3

  The Murder of Catherine Elmes

  1833

  Catherine Elmes had once run a moderately successful girls’ school in Smith Street, Chelsea but, once she had retired from that profession, Catherine had fallen on hard times. By 1833 she was living at 17 Wellesley Street, also in Chelsea, where she eked out a living by taking in the occasional lodger. She was so poor that her rent had to be paid by her brother, ‘a reverend gentleman’, who usually sent cheques drawn on his solicitor, to cover Catherine’s expenses.

  Catherine now had few pleasures in life, but one that remained was the occasional half-pint of beer with her supper. It was that which took her to the Wellesley Arms, on the evening of Thursday, 2 May 1833, when she took her own pot along and had the half of beer drawn into it. She was then seen, by a few of her neighbours, returning to her home.

  No one saw Catherine the next day, Friday. By the day after that, Saturday, 4 May, some of the neighbours were growing a little concerned. One thing that could be said for Catherine, was that she was a creature of habit and people usually saw her pottering about, or going to the local shops, but now she hadn’t been seen for two days. Mrs Exley, who lived at number 16, took her concerns to Mr Dorking, a friend of Catherine’s, who lived in Blacklands Lane. He returned to Wellesley Street with Mrs Exley and, having knocked a few times and receiving no answer, Mr Dorking decided that it would be best to call in the police.

  In due course, Constable Charles Hughes arrived and said that he would force an entry to the premises. Thinking that it might be easier to gain entrance at the back, Hughes obtained a ladder, which he put up to the bedroom on the first floor. Upon gaining access to the bedroom, Constable Hughes saw that it was in a great deal of confusion. Before investigating further, the officer went downstairs so that Mrs Exley, Mr Dorking and another gentleman, Mr Cole, could be admitted. Once they were all inside, Hughes opened the shutters, in order to let some light into the dark rooms. That light revealed the body of Catherine Elmes, lying on the floor, on her stomach, surrounded by a pool of blood.

  Catherine had been subjected to a most brutal attack. There was a deep gash over her left eye. So severe was this wound, that the left eyeball had been cut completely in two. A second gash divided the upper part of her nose. The killer had then plunged the knife into Catherine’s throat and drawn it violently from side to side. It was also possible that before this, Catherine had been struck with some blunt object, since two of her teeth had been knocked out and lay close by, on a rug.

  The motive for this crime appeared to be one of robbery, for clothes were strewn about the floor of the various rooms, cupboards and drawers had been thrown open and their contents scattered about. The problem was, how had the killer gained access? Both the front and back doors had been locked, and all the shutters had been closed and fastened from inside. Either the killer was known to Catherine and had been admitted by her, or he had had a key.

  It was this that led the police to their first suspect. At the time she had been attacked, Catherine had had a family lodging with her, a Mrs Mary Ann Eastman and her three children. She rented rooms on the second floor, but had been staying with her sister, who was ill, over the past few days. Even as Constable Hughes and the others carefully looked through the house, Mrs Eastman appeared outside and demanded to be admitted, so that she could check if any of her property had been taken. Questioned by Hughes, she seemed to be very evasive and unwilling to answer so, for that reason, she was arrested and taken to the police station for interview. She was soon able to give a full account of her movements and, once it became clear that she had nothing to do with the crime, Mrs Eastman was released.

  The inquest on the dead woman opened on Monday, 6 May, at the Wellesley Arms, before the coroner, Mr Stirling. The first step was to take the jury to number 17, where they viewed the body, which had not yet been moved. They then returned to the public house, where the first witness was Constable Hughes. He confirmed that he had been called to Wellesley Street between 3.00pm and 4.00pm and then described what he had found on gaining entry to the house.

  Mr Gaskell was the surgeon who had been called to examine the dead woman. He merely reported the details of the terrible wounds that Catherine had suffered. Gaskell was followed to the stand by Sarah Scarlet, the wife of the landlord of the Wellesley Arms, who confirmed that Catherine had called for her beer at 10.00pm on 2 May.

  James Hunt was the pot-boy at the public house and he testified that he had seen two strange men loitering in the street, at around 8.30pm on 2 May. Hunt was in and out of the bar at various times that night and each time he saw the same men. However, Constable David Costello, who was on duty in and around Wellesley Street on the night in question, said he had walked down the street between 8.00pm and 9.00pm and had seen no men.

  This testimony was negated by Constable William Lines, who had taken over Costello’s beat at 9.00pm. He said he had seen two strange men on the corner of the street, at around 10.00pm. Constable Lines had asked them what they were doing and they said that they were waiting for a friend.

  Mary Ann Eastman said that she had last stayed at Catherine’s house on Wednesday, 1 May. Since then she and the childre
n had stayed with her sister, who lived in Manor Street, because one of her children was ill, and she was helping out. The proceedings were then adjourned, pending further police enquiries.

  In fact, there was a more specific reason for adjourning the inquest at that stage. The reports of the ‘strange men’, seen in Wellesley Street on the night of the murder, led police to concentrate on tracing them. This was actually done quite quickly and so the inquest re-opened on Friday, 10 May, but this time at the workhouse, rather than the local public house.

  At the beginning of the proceedings, it was announced that a letter had been received, from the Home Office, confirming that a reward of £100 had been offered for information leading to the arrest of the miscreants in this case. This was followed by Constable Hughes taking the stand again and confirming that in his search of the premises, he had found a short sword and a knotted holly stick, but neither appeared to have been used in the attack upon Catherine Elmes. However, the officer was also able to say that he had found the pot, which Catherine had used to hold the half-pint of beer that she had purchased on the night she had been killed. The pot had been drained of its contents, leading to the conclusion that she must have finished her supper before she was attacked.

  The three men seen in the street had, by now, been identified as Roberts, Wheeler and Rickards, and all were called to show that they had perfectly innocent explanations for being in the street on the night of the murder. However, a more promising lead had by now emerged.

  Ann Busby was an old friend of the dead woman and she had told the police that at one stage, a few years back, Catherine had had a lodger living with her, who was either a nephew or a cousin of hers. He had taken to using rather foul language and eventually, Catherine had asked him to leave. They did not part on the best of terms and at one stage he had said that he would have his revenge upon her.

  In fact, the police had discovered that this man still lived in the area. The man who had been brought into court and another witness, Henry Elmes, who lived at Lancing in Sussex, were able to give some details of Catherine’s past. Henry confirmed that Catherine was his sister, and the man now produced in court was her first cousin, a man named William Dagnall.

  Dagnall was then called to the stand. He confirmed that he was Catherine’s cousin and had lived with her, for a short time, some years before. He denied that she had thrown him out, or that there was any animosity between them. He also claimed that on the night of the murder, he had been at home in bed. The next witness, Anne Quinlin, was Dagnall’s step-daughter and lived with him at 13 South Street, Chelsea. She confirmed that he had indeed been at home all that night.

  The police had no other leads to go on, and no other suspects, so the jury returned the only possible verdict of murder by person or persons unknown. As the inquest closed, the coroner remarked that investigations were ongoing and that every effort would be made to find the man or men responsible for this terrible deed. In fact, the police did not have to wait for very long before a man came forward and gave himself up for the crime.

  On Wednesday, 15 May, a man named John Sharpe, called at the house of Constable Clifton and asked to speak to him. Clifton was not at home at the time and Sharpe was advised to go to the station house in New Way, Tothill Street, which he duly did. There, he identified himself, confirmed that he lodged at 15 Dean Street, Broadway, Westminster and, when asked what he wanted, announced, ‘I am one of the men who committed the murder at Chelsea.’

  Sharpe had obviously been in a recent fight, for he bore a black eye and a badly scratched face. He went on to explain that he and two other men had broken into the house in Wellesley Street, with the intention of robbery and one of his companions had struck the old woman and then killed her. Over the last couple of days they had argued over another robbery and this argument had ended in a fight. As a result, Sharpe had now decided to give himself up and added that at a later date, possibly before the magistrates, he would name his two companions.

  Interviewed at the police station, Sharpe claimed that he and his companions had arrived at Catherine’s house at about 8.00pm on the night she was killed and had then hidden for three hours, in the kitchen. After Catherine had been killed they ransacked the house but were disturbed by what they thought was a knock at the front door. Going out the back way they then went around into Wellesley Street and discovered that the ‘knock’ was nothing more than a drunken man falling against the door.

  John Sharpe appeared before the magistrates the next day, 16 May, where details of his arrest and statement were given. It was also revealed that he had previously come to the attention of the authorities, for passing base coinage. He was then remanded in custody.

  Even at this early stage, doubts were expressed as to whether John Sharpe was actually telling the truth. A newspaper report of 20 May confirmed that Sharpe was a most unsavoury character. He was a married man but had left his wife some years ago, to live with another woman. Their relationship was a most violent one and the police had been called to his house many times, to restore the peace. Twelve months ago, Sharpe had walked into a police station, with a pile of bloody clothing, and confessed that he had murdered his two children. He was arrested at that time, but subsequent investigations revealed that the children had both died of the measles some months before. As for the blood on the clothing, that belonged to Sharpe himself and had been deposited there after yet another violent argument with his lover.

  By 30 May, when Sharpe made his next appearance in court, he had completely withdrawn his confession and claimed that he knew nothing whatsoever of the murder. After yet another argument, he had assaulted his common-law wife and she had taken out the summons and the only reason he had given himself up in the first place, was to avoid that being served upon him.

  There were, however, two problems for Sharpe to overcome. The first of these was that he had given a fairly accurate report of what must have actually happened inside the murder house. That was, possibly, explained by Sharpe’s claim that he had read those details in the local newspapers, but the second factor was more difficult to explain.

  In his statement, Sharpe had referred to he and his companions leaving the house when a drunken man fell against the door. One of Catherine Elmes’ neighbours, Mrs Elizabeth Ington, had reported to the police that she had actually seen a drunk fall against the door at almost exactly the time Sharpe had stated. For that reason, although there was no other reason to hold him, Sharpe was remanded in custody yet again.

  Sharpe made his final court appearance, in respect of the murder of Catherine Elmes, on 5 June. By that date the authorities had come to accept that he had had no involvement in the crime and was discharged. However, there remained the matter of his assault upon his lover, Hannah Heywood, and it was decided that, since she was in fear of a further assault, Sharpe must supply two sureties of £20 each. Sharpe said that he could not afford such a sum and begged Hannah to pay it for him. She refused, so Sharpe was committed to the next Middlesex sessions.

  In the event, Sharpe did manage to obtain the sureties he required and he was discharged from prison towards the end of June. He immediately returned to his lodgings to collect some of his belongings, which Hannah Heywood refused to give him. When he complained to the police, they advised him to seek the aid of a solicitor and the matter was then dropped. As for the killer of Catherine Elmes, he was never traced and the murder remains unsolved.

  Chapter 4

  William Jarman

  1837

  The relationship between William Jarman and his wife, Esther, was not all it should be and there were constant arguments between them, especially when William had been drinking. After one such argument, in early December 1837, William struck out at Esther and she swore that she would issue a summons against him, for assault. However, before any action could be taken on Esther’s complaint, a new development would occur.

  On the evening of Wednesday, 13 December 1837, Dr William Hayward Robinson was called to Jarma
n’s house in Kensington where he found William sitting in a chair, suffering from delirium tremens after his latest drinking bout. William also had a severe contusion on his left arm, which might have been caused by some sort of sharp instrument. For the time being at least, Dr Robinson decided that no further treatment was necessary, but he did promise to call again the next day.

  Dr Robinson did indeed call again on the morning of Thursday, 14 December, and found William Jarman still suffering from the effects of drink. During the examination, William asked the doctor to take a look at his wife, who was sitting in a chair near the fire. Dr Robinson did as he was asked and found that Esther’s pulse was weak and quick. Concerned that she might be suffering from some kind of fever, Dr Robinson decided that it would be best to bleed his patient from the arm. He then duly took thirteen ounces of blood, bandaged the wound and ordered Esther to bed.

  Later that same day, Dr Robinson decided to call on Esther again. He found Esther’s married daughter, Esther Lidford, waiting to speak to him. Mrs Lidford pointed out to Dr Robinson that since his last visit, the wound in her mother’s arm seemed to have opened up again, as she had started to bleed rather freely. Dr Robinson went to the bedroom to check on Esther and found that he was too late. She had passed away and the bed was extensively stained with blood.

  Since this entire affair had come about through the possible ill-treatment of Esther by her husband, the police were called in and William Jarman was duly arrested and charged with murder. He appeared before the magistrates on Friday, 15 December.

  One of the first witnesses was Police Sergeant Tringham who testified that he had first heard of Esther’s death late on the evening of 14 December. He had then gone to Jarman’s house, with Sergeant Clarke, where they had viewed the dead body of Esther Jarman. There were extensive bruises on her body and a good deal of blood about the bed, especially on the pillows.