Foul Deeds in Richmond and Kingston Read online

  Kingston Gate, 2009. The Author

  His victim that night in April in Richmond Park was forty-seven-year-old Sarah Ann Isaacson, who may have been Swedish in origin. She had been married in about 1911 to Frederick Albert Isaacson, but what was almost unheard of among working class people; was allegedly divorced in 1917, though there is no record of this. She lived with her family for a few years, then she worked as companion to Mrs Polden at The Grange, Worcester Park, from 1925–27. She seems to have been single at this point as there was no reference to any gentleman callers. In April or May 1927, she began to work for Mrs Mary Fairbrother at the Alexandra Hotel, Park Road, Kingston.

  The Alexandra Tavern, 2009. The Author

  Sarah met Baldwin when he began working at the hotel on 7 November 1930, as a potman. Although he was, ‘honest, a good worker and always willing’, problems arose. Baldwin, who did not reveal he was still married, fell in love with Mrs Isaacson. Matters came to a head early in the following year. Mrs Fairbrother noted:

  On Friday 6 March 1931, I had occasion to speak to Mrs Carr [as Mrs Isaacson was known] as to her being in Baldwin’s bedroom. She made the excuse that she wanted to tell him something. I knew they were walking out together. Mrs Carr became very slack in her work and appearance and I thought they were rather too friendly and I decided to dispense with them both.

  She was convinced that ‘they had been having sex relations at the hotel’ and gave them a week’s notice, but they left on the following day. Baldwin soon obtained another job as a barman, this time at The Prince of Wales pub on Bridge Road, Molesey. This was on 16 March, but he chucked it on the following day, and rang his employer on 18 March to say that he could not come to work owing to being injured in a motorcycle accident. Mrs Isaacson went back to stay with her sister in law at New Malden.

  Richmond Park. Author’s collection

  In March, neither of the couple enjoyed good health. On 21 March, Mrs Isaacson went into Kingston Hospital for scabies treatment. On the following day, Baldwin was in Brighton. He was found by PC Prescott at 12.55 pm on West Street and appeared to have lost his memory, so was taken to the town’s infirmary. Dr H J McCurrick later said:

  He was suffering from loss of memory. On admission he said that he had a blank in his nerves. He remembered heading home, but did not remember anything more until taken by a policeman to the town hall. He afterwards appeared to be quite rational, but could not fill in the blank in his memory referred to above.

  He was discharged on 26 March to William Bland Tooting, his brother-in-law’s care. He recalled, ‘He seemed broody and disinclined to want to talk – he seemed nervous.’

  The two were very much devoted to each other. Mrs Isaacson was visited in hospital on three occasions by Baldwin. They also wrote to one another. In one of his letters, he wrote, ‘You have made me so happy while I have been with you it has been the best time of my life.’ She wrote, ‘Seeing you today has taken 10 years off my life … It is simply delightful to be here and know somebody loves you ever so much, really Billy darling it is just your love for me that has kept me young.’ She was discharged on 6 April and went to Frederick Salveson’s house in Malden Road, New Malden. He was her brother, and a respectable bank manager.

  Emily Salveson was Mrs Isaacson’s sister-in-law and she commented on her feelings for Baldwin. Mrs Isaacson thought he was thirty-four and a bachelor. Furthermore, ‘I do know Baldwin brought happiness to her life and she was very much attached to him, in fact it was suggested that they should be married at Easter.’ She added, ‘She was very much infatuated’, but thought she should break from Baldwin. However, on the day of her return, he rang her there and suggested they meet, to which she readily assented.

  The two met at Waterloo station at 1.20 pm, and then went for lunch at the Coventry Street Corner House, before going to a nearby cinema. They then had tea. That evening they went to Vauxhall railway station and took a train to Malden. However, they continued onto Norbiton. At 9 pm they dined at The Borough Arms on Park Road. For old times’ sake they took a look at their former place of work.

  That night, Baldwin decided to tell Mrs Isaacson that he was married, and did so at the corner of Park Road and King’s Road. The two then proceeded to Richmond Park. He said that she was feeling suicidal.

  Returning to the scene at Kingston police station in the early hours of 7 April, the police went with Baldwin to the park and he showed them where Mrs Isaacson’s corpse lay. It was fully dressed, and covered with the pages of the Evening Standard. There was an umbrella near her head and on examination, marks were found around her neck. On her body was a wedding ring, 6d in silver and 91/2d in bronze. Dr Armstrong, the Divisional Surgeon, was called.

  When Baldwin was back at the police station, he made several statements as to what happened. One was the relatively brief, ‘I took her by the throat with my hands and that is all I know.’ He also said, ‘I strangled her and then lost my nerve to do myself in. It was done at about 9 o’clock. I sat with her for hours waiting for her to come round, and did not realise that I had killed her.’ He also said, on 8 April, to PC Hodge:

  I did not do this for the same reason as Goulter. We went to London and spent £2 and when we came back we only had 1s, so we made up our minds to die together. I strangled her and then lost my nerve to do myself.

  Baldwin was searched and evidence of his poverty was found – there was only 9 1/2d on his person as well as three pawn tickets.

  The inquest was held at Kingston on 10 April and Baldwin was accused of the murder by strangulation. He was sent to Wandsworth prison to await trial. At the trial, which took place at the Surrey Assizes, on 29 June 1931, the defence spent much time attacking PC Hodge’s evidence. They argued that the crime was not Baldwin’s fault, but was due to his suffering from amnesia. Yet Hodge stood up to his examiners and his superiors later noted, ‘The PC is to be commended for the creditable manner in which he gave his evidence under stress of severe cross examination.’ The jury took forty minutes to decide that Baldwin was guilty and so he was condemned to death. Despite an appeal based on insanity falling on 27 July, a reprieve was granted on 4 August and Baldwin was sentenced to penal servitude, for life.

  There is no doubt that Baldwin and Mrs Isaacson went together to Richmond Park on the evening of 6 April. They were much in love, but were also despondent because they could not marry due to Baldwin still being married. They also had very little money. Did they enter a suicide pact as Baldwin stated? Very possibly, but the survivor of a suicide pact is deemed guilty of murder as Mrs Seddon discovered in 1905. At the Park, Baldwin strangled his girlfriend and, about three hours later, left her body and went to the police station to confess. He made no attempt to escape. The question is whether he was suffering from memory loss when he killed her. Quite possibly, as he had done so in the past. He was eventually given the benefit of the doubt and so had his life saved.

  CHAPTER 15

  Albert Hadfield – Guilty or Not Guilty?

  1936

  Let me find you in a better frame of mind tonight or there will be fireworks.

  Albert Hadfield was a sixty-nine-year-old confectioner (he had been in this business since about 1921) who, in 1936, lived at Nelson Road, Whitton, near Twickenham. He had been born in Westminster, and lived much of his early life in south London, working as a clerk. He married Julia, at St George’s Church, Southwark, on 9 October 1897. They had two children: Alfred (who was killed in the First World War) and Phyllis. Yet the marriage fell into difficulties. It seems that Hadfield, who had contracted a venereal disease in the 1890s, was deemed ‘a man of exceedingly low moral character’ and was ‘most cruel to her’. She feared for her life. There was a separation order and his wife was given a 10s weekly allowance, which was paid irregularly. In 1911, he lived with his widowed mother, Clare, in Braybourne Avenue. He then lived with his daughter, who was his housekeeper. He also owned a house in Clapham. In about 1929, he had become acquainted with an elderly widow
of independent means, Mrs Laura Eliza Mordaunt-Chapman.

  From August 1927, Laura had resided on Hampton Road, Twickenham. She had been born in Usk, Monmouthshire, in about 1875, as Laura Davies. She had married a property developer called Algernon Mordaunt-Chapman who was twenty-two years her senior and from about 190811 they lived in Eltham Road, Lewisham, and from about 1919, Peak Hill, Sydenham. They had no children and her husband died in December 1922. She was still there until about 1926. Her nearest relation was Albert Davies, of Usk, her brother. She had few callers and lived very quietly. She paid her bills regularly, was generous at Christmas to the tradesmen and was well known for ordering her drinks from The Prince of Wales pub. She owned twenty-one properties in and around London, the rents on these providing her with a monthly income of £218 19s, being paid by postal order. Although wealthy she had not made a will, though her wealth amounted to at least £13, 942 15s 11d. Hadfield helped her with her business matters, doubtless drawing on his previous commercial experience, and in 1936 was involved in helping her sell a house. He also wrote letters for her. On one occasion, he had helped her secure an income tax rebate worth £400, and was given 10% as a fee. He used to call on her every Monday morning.

  Hampton Hill Road, 2009. The Author

  The Prince of Wales pub, 2009. The Author

  It was Hadfield who rang Twickenham police station at 12.35 pm on Thursday 9 July 1936, to tell them that all was not well with the widow. He asked, ‘Will you please send an officer to this address? I think the place has been entered. The front door is open.’ He suspected foul play because he thought her house had been entered illegally, and that there was a lot of clothes scattered about (clearly he had entered it, however briefly). He thought that her corpse might lie concealed under these. When the police arrived, they were greeted at the door by Hadfield himself. He took them to the kitchen and pointed to the window sill, where there was a note written on blue paper. He told them, ‘I came yesterday and left that note, wedged in the window, as I had written two postcards which she had not answered.’

  Twickenham Police Station, 2009. The Author

  It was noticed that Hadfield was in an excitable condition and his hands were shaking badly. He then took the police upstairs – to the very place he had just come from – and showed them a heap of clothing in a bedroom. Something had been burning. Hadfield told them, ‘You may find a body under there.’ Sure enough, a foot could be seen portruding and once a blanket had been lifted up, the back and shoulders of a body could be seen. Hadfield seemed to be surprised and cried, ‘My God! There it is!’

  By the body were two postcards. Hadfield told PS Whapham, ‘These are the two postcards I sent her. I want you to take charge of them as they will show you what I came here today for.’ One was postmarked 7 July and the other for the following day and they both concerned letting a house. These seemed to be above board. Yet Detective Inspector Baker found another postcard in the bedroom. This was also from Hadfield, but was bloodstained. It was undated. There was a blurred fingerprint on it, of a thumb which had a scar on it. Hadfield’s left thumb was similarly marked. Copies of the Daily Express for 7–9 July were found behind the doormat, whilst one for 6 July was located in the woman’s bedroom, this pointing to 6 July being the day of the murder.

  The widow had last been seen alive in her back garden on Monday afternoon, 6 July, by Mrs Alice Colledge, a neighbour. According to initial medical estimates, she had died between then and 8 July. Sir Bernard Spilsbury was called to examine the body, which was, of course, that of the late widow. He found numerous stab wounds on her back and neck, amounting to fortysix in all. There was also a bruise on her head and he surmised that she had been knocked unconscious and then repeatedly knifed. The item used to hit her was a heavy ornament which was found in the sideboard cupboard. Death would have resulted in fifteen minutes. He thought death could have occurred on either 6 or 7 July. The weapon used was not a penknife, but a weapon similar to a sailor’s jack knife.

  There was also an examination of the house. It seemed that the killer was probably known to his victim, because there was no sign of forced entry, on either the windows or doors. Nor was robbery a probable motive because sums of money were found throughout the house, and there seemed to have been no search for any valuables in the house. Under the wardrobe were ten £1 notes and other money and money orders to the value of £208. In the kitchen, a handbag contained £2 in notes, plus silver and bronze. Possibly the crime was caused because the killer wanted to destroy something which might incriminate him, as there was evidence that a pile of papers had been burnt, and these were found near to the body.

  Police called at Hadfield’s house, on 13 July, when he did everything he could to assist them. They were shown his clothing, including his cycling breeches and stockings, and his mackintosh. He told them that the breeches might show traces of creosote, as he had been creosoting the fence recently.

  He emerged as the leading suspect. There was certainly some evidence against him. First, Mrs Florence Dickinson, of Bedford Road, Twickenham, had been waiting for a bus on Hampton Road on 6 July and heard a noise in Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman’s house. She then saw a man nearby, who was cleaning something, but she could not make out his features. When she returned from her journey, an hour and a half later, she saw the same man coming out of the house by the side gate. She later identified him as Hadfield, whom she had seen before at his shop in Whitton. When seen in July 1936, he was wearing knee breeches and had a bicycle. She also saw him there on 8 and 9 July, but her identification of him may have been mistaken. A neighbour, Mrs Elkins, had seen Hadfield knocking on the door on 8 July, but received no reply. Hadfield denied he had been near the house when Mrs Colledge claimed he had.

  As to motive, it was shortly ascertained that in July 1935, Hadfield borrowed £550 from Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman, at 5% interest, but he assured the police that he had kept up with the interest payments.

  There was some other evidence against Hadfield. Firstly, his relationship with the dead woman was strained at times. Letters from him were located. Some extracts from them read as follows, ‘I am very much surprised at your treatment. I have always been loyal to you.’ Another read, ‘I am worth my weight in gold to you the amount of money I save you.’ Yet another read ‘Why you wrote that scandalous letter I cannot imagine.’ Another read, ‘Let me find you in a better frame of mind tonight or there will be fireworks.’ These comments suggest that Hadfield saw Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman as a difficult woman. Whether his annoyance at her perceived treatment of him could have led to violence is another question.

  It is also worth noting Hadfield’s remark about the victim, ‘I don’t know of anyone who she would even speak to, she was very eccentric.’ He was perhaps the only person she saw regularly. The police made the following conclusion, ‘He was the only person, as far as we can gather, who was ever admitted to the house. Of recent years and certainly he is the only person who had knowledge of this woman’s habits and intimate affairs.’ They thought Hadfield was guilty. It should also be wondered why Hadfield was at the house on Thursday

  – his usual visiting day was Monday. This was never explained and perhaps it was because, if he was guilty, he wanted to be on hand when the police arrived.

  A man’s bicycle was also seen outside the house on 6 July, at 1.10 pm, by William Humphries, a dustman. He said it was the same type as Hadfield’s. Moreover, a milkman claimed he saw the figure of an adult in the house at 5am on 9 July.

  The police deemed Hadfield to be a ‘cool, calculating individual … a man of patience and ability’. Other assessments of his character varied. One said, he was ‘of quiet disposition and very honest’. A business rival thought differently, ‘He seemed to be of very unfriendly nature’. The police concluded that the killer was either a lunatic or someone who had quarrelled with the deceased and that, ‘The latter assumption appeared to be the more reasonable.’ They had little doubt over whom that individual was.

  The ca
se for the prosecution opened at Brentford magistrates’ court on 5 August and from then Hadfield was sent to the Old Bailey for trial a month later. However, both the prosecution and the judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. The jury agreed with them and so Hadfield was found to be not guilty. A crowd of well wishers congratulated him, and he and his daughter took a taxicab home.

  Although the police were convinced that Hadfield was guilty and one remarked after the trial, ‘I think he is a very lucky fellow,’ Hadfield would not let the matter rest. He began writing letters to Scotland Yard about the police’s incompetence in failing to catch the real killer and in trying to pin the crime on him. For instance, in January 1938, he wrote, ‘I am naturally personally concerned at hearing nothing of any effort to discover the perpetrator of this crime, you will admit I am sure, my right to be anxious, as I have been made to suffer and spend my savings to save my life, through the stupidity and inefficiency of your so called detective officers.’ Hadfield named a neighbour as the guilty party, a man whom Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman was ‘at daggers drawn’. But he was questioned and found not to have been involved. The police had to endure visits from Hadfield, but soon became annoyed by him and ceased to receive him, believing no good would result from these calls.

  Another person accused was Mrs Hickling, of East Kirby, Nottinghamshire. In September 1938, one Cyril Harris claimed he was at Mrs Mordaunt-Chapman’s house on 3 July and he said he saw the woman stabbing the widow to death. He was an inmate of a mental asylum and his claim was not taken seriously.