Foul Deeds in Richmond and Kingston Read online

  In 1859, Smethurst was described as ‘rather stout, swarthy complexion, with dark moustaches’.

  However, from about June 1858, the Smethursts were living at Joseph Smith’s boarding house at 4 Rifle Terrace, Bayswater (now the southeast part of Queensway). Mrs Smethurst was now aged seventy-two and her husband fifty-three. By the autumn, another occupant was a younger woman, Isabella Bankes (aged forty-two), a woman of independent means (about £480 pa), who will play an important part in the unfolding drama. Little is known about her, except that her (probably late) father, George Bankes, was styled a gentleman in a description in 1858 and she had an unmarried sister, Louisa, who lived in London and was also of independent means, both daughters living off the interest from investments. She began living at the same house as the Smethursts on 20 September 1858. Isabella was not apparently in the best of health, suffering from sickness, nausea and had had to leave the dinner table on two occasions.

  They all seem to cohabit on the best of terms. Smith later recalled:

  Miss Bankes was in the habit of associating with Dr and Mrs Smethurst – the lady sat at the same table, and took the same meals, and was always recognised as Dr Smethurst’s wife – Miss Bankes was quite on intimate terms with Mrs Smethurst – during the time they were living together I have seen Miss Bankes’ sister call on her, on more than one occasion – I have seen Miss Bankes, her sister Miss Louisa Bankes, and Mrs Smethurst, taking their meals or luncheon together – as long as I knew Dr Smethurst his conduct was quite that of a gentleman; it was that of an amiable, well-behaved, kind person … he was very attentive towards his wife.

  These amicable relations were only a veneer. Mrs Smith, the landlord’s wife, gave Miss Bankes orders to quit on 29 November, because of ‘improper familiarity’ between her and the Smethursts. Mrs Smethurst later recalled that it was Miss Bankes who had encouraged her husband to stray. She did not go far. She went to a lodging house in Kildare Road, Bayswater, and went out for a walk every day, to go to Clifton for the good of her health. Yet events were to take a decisive turn for the dramatic on 9 December at the parish church of Battersea. It was there and then that Smethurst and Miss Bankes married, thus the former committed bigamy. James Spice, the parish clerk, witnessed the event. Smethurst left the boarding house on 12 December. However, Mrs Smethurst stayed on until at least June 1859. He visited her on several occasions thereafter, paying her weekly rent of £1 5s and frequently wrote to her.

  Smethurst later claimed:

  I declare that my wife was aware of the attachment that existed between me and Miss Bankes, and that it was arranged that she should never trouble me or make any enquiries after me, and I was to visit her when I pleased, and nothing was to be said in my absence.

  Old Palace Terrace, 2009. The Author

  Smethurst also later claimed that he and Miss Bankes were passionately in love, and that only marriage would do, in order to maintain the respectability of his love and prevent her from any self reproach. He said that they were only waiting for the death of his first wife, now in her early seventies, which he did not think would be long. Although divorce was slightly easier after the Divorce Act of 1858, it was an expensive and time consuming activity, as well as a very public one, so was not to be undertaken lightly. Few did so.

  It is not known where the ‘newly weds’ were for the next two months, but on 4 February, they had taken rooms in 6 Old Palace Terrace, Richmond Green, Richmond, paying 18s per week. Mrs Anne Robinson, the landlady, said that Isabella was in good health on arrival. But by late March she was suffering from sickness and diarrhoea. Smethurst proclaimed that it was a bilious attack. He supplied his ‘wife’ with all her meals. Yet he was unhappy with his diagnosis, for he summoned one Dr Julius, a local physician, as recommended by Mrs Robinson, but nonetheless, the vomiting and sickness carried on until 15 April, when the two left, apparently because Smethurst said he could not afford the new weekly rent which had risen by five shillings.

  During their stay, Smethurst often went up to London. Isabella often complained of having no appetite, but when the landlady’s daughter gave her an egg, she ate it and enjoyed it. When she returned from walks, she was exhausted. Yet there was every sign of Smethurst behaving affectionately towards her and her illness occurred when he was absent as well as when he was with her.

  On 15 April, the pair were living at 10 Alma Villas (now part of Rosemont Road), renting a sitting room and a bedroom. They travelled there in a cab, and Mrs Susannah Wheatley, the proprietor, recalled that Isabella was scarcely able to walk, and had to go to her bed as soon as she arrived. Refusing the services of a doctor, allegedly on the grounds of cost, Smethurst declared that no one could tend her but himself and he had sole access to her and brought up all her meals to her room. She was only once seen in the sitting room. Mrs Wheatley offered to act a nurse, but Smethurst declined, though he did allow her to make his ‘wife’ some tapioca pudding; on the first occasion this was liked, on the second, it was thought to be bitter and not drunk. Again, the couple seemed very happy together.

  Alma Villas, Rosemont Road, 2009. The Author

  Smethurst wrote to Louisa Bankes on 20 April, requesting that she visit. She did so and found her sister to be in an excitable state, but was unable to see her sister alone for more than a minute. Louisa suggested that a doctor known to their family, one Lane, be called in, but her sister refused, as did her ever present husband. Louisa offered to make some dessert for her sister, but Smethurst refused to allow this. He also mentioned that his wife’s latest dividend under her late father’s will was not as much as it normally was. On her departure, Isabella told Louisa that she wanted to see her again, and soon.

  There were a few letters by Smethurst to Louisa, asking her not to visit because the excitement would upset Isabella. Yet on 30 April he wrote again. Isabella’s condition had deteriorated. She may have believed she was on her deathbed, because that morning she called Mr Senior, a Richmond solicitor, and made her will. This left everything, except a brooch, to Smethurst ‘her sincere and beloved friend’. This was about £1,740, but the interest she was paid on a further £5,000 ended with her death. Louisa went to Richmond again, and saw her sister, who was by now unable to speak. As before, Smethurst stayed with the two sisters. She brought some soup for Isabella and allowed Smethurst to stir it. On eating it, she was at once sick. Smethurst explained that Isabella was in great pain, despite the pills provided by one Dr Todd, which had caused burning sensations all over her body.

  Jemima Chetwood, a nurse, was hired on 2 May at the advice of Dr Julius’ assistant, and she and Louisa attended Isabella, giving her arrow root and similar. Never once did she vomit again. She also drank tea without any problems. Yet at 11 am on 3 May, Isabella died in great agony. Smethurst refused to give any money for the nurse’s services, because he said he had been opposed to the idea.

  By this time, Smethurst was suspected by Dr Julius of poisoning her and was briefly taken into custody by Inspector McIntyre, of the local police, but was allowed to return to Isabella before she died.

  On the day after Isabella’s death, Smethurst was brought before the Richmond magistrates. He was accused of having caused Isabella’s death by arsenic poisoning in order to financially benefit by her death. Dr Julius suspected Smethurst of poisoning her on the grounds that the medicine he had been supplying to her was not working and therefore something untoward must be happening. Samples from the deceased were sent to Dr Taylor of Guy’s Hospital to analyse and he found traces of arsenic therein, but only in small quantities and insufficient to cause death. A post mortem found the liver and stomach to be inflamed, which was a symptom of, amongst other ailments, arsenic poisoning. Smethurst was then remanded in custody for a further hearing once more evidence had been amassed.

  The next hearing took place at Richmond on 20 May. The investigation had subsequently involved the examination of the large number of medicine bottles that had been found in Smethurst and Isabella’s rooms. One was fo
und to contain chloride of potash which could cause inflammation. Quinine mixture in another bottle could produce arsenic if mixed with other substances. Yet a minute examination of the deceased’s stomach and organs failed to discover any arsenic.

  Other doctors gave their views. One, Dr Bird, who had seen Isabella in Richmond whilst alive, did not think she had suffered from dysentery and was at a loss to account for her symptoms. Arsenic or antimony, another poison, might result in them. Arsenic was easily obtainable and was a very commonly used poison.

  Frederick Caudle, Dr Julius’ assistant had prepared the medicines for his employer. He stated that neither arsenic nor antimony had been supplied in any of the preparations he had made up. Dr Todd attested to her suffering from vomiting and diarrhoea.

  Dr Taylor summed up what he and most of the other doctors were thinking, when he said, ‘I have no doubt that the cause of death is inflammation, caused by irritating poisons. Taking all the matters into consideration, I can only account for death by supposing that it had been the result of antimony and arsenic administered in small doses, and at intervals’. With that, and the support of a colleague from the same hospital, Dr Odling, Smethurst was formally committed for trial at the Old Bailey.

  The trial was set for July, but had to be postponed until the following month because of the illness of a juror. When it actually began on 15 August, Smethurst pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge of murder. The prosecution began with a history of the prisoner’s relations with Isabella Bankes, of her illness and then death. Much of the evidence was given by doctors Bird, Julius and the others mentioned, most of whom had no experience of dealing with cases of arsenic poisoning, it should be noted. Some were knowledgeable about dysentery overseas and amongst men. One key statement was by Dr Taylor, who stated that the copper strip on which he had tested for arsenic had been contaminated, thus rendering his evidence invalid. Another piece of crucial evidence was that Isabella was about six weeks pregnant on death. Vomiting and diarrhoea often occur in the early stages of pregnancy. Attention was also drawn to Smethurst’s financial position. He had ceased to practice as a surgeon for some years and is not known to have any significant source of income. In April 1859, he only had between £100150 in his account at the London and Westminster Bank. Later that month, £71 5s was added to this, from Isabella’s income.

  A number of doctors were called for the defence. They stated that Isabella might have died due to complications in the pregnancy or by dysentery. The lack of evidence about arsenic was also pointed out. It was also noted that Smethurst stood to lose financially by Isabella’s death, because, although gaining a lump sum of £1,700, he would be losing a regular monthly income of just over £71. Furthermore, the £1,700 was not in ready money but was tied up in a mortgage. Smethurst’s actions were also commented upon. He had called in doctors to help his wife, he had allowed others access to her and had tended to her himself. These were hardly the actions of a guilty man. It is also worth noting that no one could produce an entry in a poison book with Smethurst’s signature on it, though perhaps this was an omission of the police and prosecution. Anyone buying arsenic would have had to have made such a declaration, but no one showed Smethurst to have had done so, indicating that he probably had not.

  It had been a trial which had lasted five days, finishing on Friday 19 August. It was a complex and technical case. Sir Jonathan Pollock, the Chief Baron and judge, summed up against the prisoner. The jury retired for forty minutes. On their return, they informed the court that they had found Smethurst to be guilty. The death sentence was duly passed, and then Smethurst spoke for twenty-five minutes, an unusually long time. As ever, he was calm and emotionless, telling everyone about his innocence.

  After the verdict had been given, the condemned man was sent to Horsemonger Gaol. A date for his execution was set, 31 August, and he began having discussions with the prison chaplain. Many people wished to see him, and he continued to protest his innocence to all he spoke to. Cynics recalled that Dr Palmer had done likewise. Yet in Smethurst’s case, there seemed valid reasons for doubting his guilt. Many scientists and medical men wrote to the newspapers to support him (even Mary Smethurst wrote to protest at her erring husband’s fate), though the jury who had decided his fate stuck to their decision.

  Little did the jury know it, but the most famous writer of the day, Charles Dickens (1812–70) agreed with them. Known to his readers both then and now as a man known for his benevolence, the author took a firm line on law and order. He wrote to John Forster on 25 August:

  I cannot easily tell you how much interested I am by what you tell me of our brave and excellent friend the Chief Baron, in connection with that ruffian. I followed the case with so much interest, and have followed the miserable knaves and asses who have perverted it since, with so much indignation, that I have often had more than half a mind to write and thank the upright judge who tried him. I declare to God that I believe such a service one of the greatest that a man of intellect and courage can render to society. Of course I saw the beast of a prisoner (with my mind’s eye) delivering his cut and dried speech, and read in every word of it that no one but the murderer could have delivered or conceived it. Of course I have been driving the girls out of their wits here, by incessantly proclaiming that there need to be no medical evidence either way, and that the case was plain without it. Lastly, of course … I would hang any Home Secretary…who would step in between that black scoundrel and the gallows.

  Dickens castigated ‘the amiable Smethurst whom the newspapers strangely delight to make a sort of gentleman’ and later wrote a pamphlet about the criminal law, in which he stated that reforms be made on the principle ‘that the real offender is the Murdered Person’.

  Despite Dickens’ views, which he appears to have kept private, the Home Secretary, Sir George Cornewell, had Sir Benjamin Bodie, a leading physician, investigate the matter. On 14 November, the Queen was advised to grant Smethurst a free pardon, such were the doubts cast on his conviction, notwithstanding lasting suspicion.

  Although Smethurst had escaped the gallows, his troubles were not at an end. He had to return to the Old Bailey yet again, this time on the charge of committing bigamy. This time there was little room for doubt. Witnesses identified both him and his legal wife, and parish clerks read out evidence from the parish registers of Kennington and Battersea. Smethurst was found guilty and he was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment.

  He may still have been in gaol in early 1861, but later that year, he was once again in court. At least this time, he was not on trial for any offence. He was claiming the money left to him by Isabella Bankes’ will of 1859. Louisa Bankes and Mr Tomalin, who was married into the family, contested this on the grounds that he had used undue pressure to make the now deceased sign and that he may have murdered her, too. The case dragged on for a year and it was not until 1862 that the court found in Smethurst’s favour. Yet Smethurst only inherited less than £800; possibly not even £200. By now he resided at Hanover Street, Pimlico.

  Smethurst returned to his wife in 1862, and she died in Kingston in 1863. Two years later, her husband, now free to marry legitimately, did so, in Denbighshire in 1865, to a woman called Annie, who was twenty-eight (to his sixty). In 1871 the two were living in Scarsdale Terrace (now part of Wright’s Avenue, just south of Kensington High Street), Kensington, where he no longer practised medicine in any form, describing himself as ‘Householder’. By this time, his brother, William, was again living with them. Smethurst died, of natural causes, on 18 October 1873, aged sixty-eight, in total obscurity, living in a house in Brompton Square. He had under £100 to leave to his widow.

  It seems highly probable that Smethurst was innocent of committing murder. It seems likely that Isabella died of irritable bowel syndrome or Crohn’s disease. Prejudice may have been built up against him because he was a bigamist, and also because of the suspicions of the medical men. Dr Taylor’s initial pronouncement about finding arsenic in one of the bot
tles, although later taken back, probably also created a negative impression. With the recent high profile poisoning case of Dr Palmer in the public mind, and the fact that Smethurst was a doctor, was another factor against him. And the question of the will in his favour also helped to cause suspicion. Taken together, all these created an apparently strong case against Smethurst. However, the almost certainty that Isabella did not die from arsenic poisoning counters all this and leads us to the conclusion that he was not guilty, so was rightly pardoned.

  CHAPTER 4

  A Crime of Lunacy

  1861

  I was reading a newspaper last week and there were accounts of some most dreadful murders in it, and to think that I should be the cause of another!

  On Tuesday 26 March 1861, the men of the 3rd Regiment of the Royal Surrey Militia were stationed in their barracks in Kingston. For the married men, such as Sergeant Major Charles Bradish, a forty-year-old, born in London, their wives were also sleeping there. Bradish had enlisted in the 36th Regiment of Foot, the Herefordshire Regiment, in 1850 and served for ten years, before joining his current unit. Next door to the Bradish’s room there slept on a sofa Diana Wickens, a woman of twenty years, who was Mrs Martha Bradish’s stepsister. Martha had been born in Woolhampton, Berkshire, in about 1816. Miss Wickens had been in domestic service for the last eighteen months, but was now without a place and for the last two weeks had stayed with the Bradishes, which was Mrs Bradish’s suggestion, rather than her going to stay with relatives in Berkshire. She was literate and had been seen copying religious tracts.