Foul Deeds in Richmond and Kingston Page 6

  Cardross Road, 2009. The Author

  Hammersmith Bridge, 2009. The Author

  Katherine and Church came to an agreement that he would pay her £68 for the furniture and goods, giving her £18 on account. The day for the removal of these items, which included iron bedsteads, carpets, chairs, looking glasses, book cases, sofa, couch and other household goods, was Tuesday 18 March. Church brought a van around with some workmen. Mrs Ives made enquiries, ‘What are you doing with those goods? The workmen explained that they were taking them away to be sold. She then said, ‘You cannot take the goods. Mrs Thomas has taken the house for a term of years, and we are the owners. Where is Mrs Thomas?’ The men asked for Katherine, who, not suspecting the nature of their enquiry, came into Mrs Ives’ vision. Mrs Ives addressed her, ‘This is very strange moving your mistress’ goods. Where is Mrs Thomas?’ This puzzled the workmen, who had been led to believe that Katherine was Mrs Thomas. Katherine told Miss Ives, ‘Mrs Thomas has sold the things and this man can show you the receipt. Mr Westcomb is to take them to Hammersmith.’ She was evasive about where Mrs Thomas was.

  Katherine did not stay around for much longer. That day she returned to the Porter’s house, where she had left her son a few days ago. Taking him and borrowing a guinea from Mrs Porter, they took a cab to Hammersmith station and then a train from there to King’s Cross station. They then travelled from there by train to Liverpool and on 21 March the two reached Enniscorthy in Ireland. She announced that she was the widow of Captain John Webster and that she had lost four children.

  Meanwhile, other discoveries of a disturbing nature were being found near Richmond, though at first no connection was made between them and Katherine Webster. On 5 March, Henry Wrigley, of Mortlake, a coal porter, was walking by the towpath near Barnes. He saw an unusual sight, as he later recalled:

  I saw a box in the Thames about 6.45 am on Wednesday, March 5, on the lower side of Barnes Bridge – the tide was not ebbing from the top of it – it was half afloat – it had a cord twice around it, across – I kicked it and broke it to pieces – the handle was off, I believe – I went to the station and fetched someone, leaving a man named Kerrison in charge of it … before I went I saw a lot of what looked like cooked meat inside it – it was quite full.

  PS Tomas Childs arrived to take charge of the box, and he reported that the contents of the box seemed to be human remains, each piece wrapped in brown paper. Clearly murder had been committed. He called Dr Adams, of Barnes, who briefly examined them. He concluded that these mutilated remains belonged to a woman aged between twenty and thirty, judging by the brown hair on an armpit. The CID and the divisional police were informed and a search was made along the Thames near Barnes to see if anyone was missing. It transpired that a young German woman employed as a servant had recently left her post in East Sheen and had not been seen since. She was also known to have had a box like the one in which the human remains had been found. This supported Dr Adams’ theory about the age of the victim. There was an inquest at the Red Lion Hotel on 10 March, which was adjourned for a week.

  Other body parts were found in the following days. On 12 March, Edward Shaw found the remains of a human foot in a dung pile and two weeks later the police found a carpet bag with burnt bones, a chopper and female clothing. However, no head was ever found and the body was never definitely identified, as is the case when a body is chopped up and never wholly located – there was a similar case in 1873 when parts of a female body was found in the Thames (detailed in the author’s Unsolved Murders in Victorian and Edwardian London).

  Eventually, Thomas Bond, a lecturer in forensic science who was also employed at Westminster Hospital, was brought to the mortuary to see the remains (in 1888 he examined a number of the victims of Jack the Ripper). He made a rather more thorough examination and came to radically different conclusions than Dr Adams. He concluded that the remains were those of a short middle-aged woman, and that the body had been sawn into pieces by someone with no anatomical skill.

  Meanwhile, on 19 March, Church returned to Park Road and tried to talk to Miss Ives, but she slammed the door in his face. In the meantime, the clothing taken from the house was examined by Church. He found a letter addressed to Mrs Thomas from her friends, the Menhennicks, in Finsbury, whom he informed on 21 March, as well as telling them about his dealings with Katherine. They passed this information onto Mr Hughes, Mrs Thomas’ solicitor. Hughes made enquiries in Richmond and was told that this client of his had not been seen for three weeks and there had been great commotion in the house in the past weeks. He contacted Inspector John Pearman of the Richmond Police, who was already investigating the case of the human remains found in the box in the Thames. He became very suspicious.

  Pearman and Hughes found out about Church and searched his premises on 22 March, finding rings belonging to the missing woman, as identified by the Menhennicks. Church told them about his transaction with Katherine. That same day they then went to Mrs Thomas’ house, and were given access by Miss Ives. Leaving Porter and Church outside, the other two entered. Pearman later explained:

  We found everything in great confusion – the furniture packed up, and bed linen and wearing apparel packed up in three large boxes, which corded. The carpets were up in the three back bedrooms, while the dining room and drawing room carpets were partly turned up at the sides of the rooms. There was no one in the house.

  Some of Mrs Thomas’ jewellery was found in the house. Next day, the police heard Robert Porter’s tale of helping Katherine with a box. On 24 March, Pearman returned to Park Road. He went to the basement to search the scullery and the kitchen and made a number of sinister discoveries, as he explained:

  I searched the ashes under the kitchen grate and found a quantity of charred bones and some burnt buttons of a woman’s dress … I found more charred bones, these being in the copper furnace … taking the copper out of the brick work, I found, half way down, a fatty substance adhering to the sides … I found what appeared to be a bloodstain on the wainscot of the room called the long bedroom.

  He took samples of his finds away, and also found a chopper and a knife, but not a saw. He also found Mrs Thomas’ diary with a comment about giving her servant notice to leave. Furthermore, a letter was found addressed to Katherine from her friends in Ireland, giving their address – so the police now knew where to go to find her.

  Inspector John Dowdell was despatched to Ireland to apprehend Katherine Webster. He was joined by Inspector Jones and together they made their way from Dublin to Wexford. She had been detained by one William Roche of the Irish police already and on 28 March he had the wanted woman in his custody. He told her she would be charged with murder, but she did not reply. Mr Robinson, a magistrate there, made out a warrant for her to be committed to Richmond magistrates. Her uncle, a small farmer, did not accept her son, so he was committed to Enniscorthy workhouse. The two policemen went back to England with their prisoner by ferry to Holyhead. She said to him, ‘Is there any other person in custody for the murder?’ They did not reply, so she added, ‘There ought to be; the innocent should not suffer for the guilty.’

  Her story concerned Church, whom she said she had known for seven years and was seeing a great deal of. He talked of killing Mrs Thomas and selling her goods. On 3 March she said he visited the house and Katherine left. On her return she said she saw Mrs Thomas dying, having been stabbed to death by Church, who threatened to do the same to her if she breathed a word to anyone. In subsequent days they disposed of the body and began to sell the goods. The police seemed to have been impressed with the story.

  The magistrates in Richmond began to examine the case in the Vestry Hall on 31 March. There was great local excitement about this case and crowds gathered around, but few could gain admittance into the court room. Katherine was described thus:

  The woman was pale, but she was firm and self possessed, with no trace of excitement in her demeanour. She has no characteristics of a criminal in her face, and, th
ough not handsome, is not ill-looking. Her jacket was of shabby cloth, trimmed with imitation fur, and her dress of the material and cut usually favoured by respectable servants. Her hat was stylish and out of keeping with a servant’s position.

  She was charged with murder and robbery, but because of her statement to Pearman, Church was also accused. The hearings at Richmond continued for several days as all the witnesses gave evidence. The case of the prosecution was that Mrs Thomas was last seen alive on 2 March, and that Katherine had killed her on that day. She had then boiled down the body, chopped it into pieces, and had packed it up. On 4 March she enlisted the help of the Porters to try and dispose of the body in the Thames. This had only been partially successful, for although the remains in the bag had not been found, and never were, those in the other box were enough. She then proceeded to sell the dead woman’s belongings.

  Eventually, Church was cleared of all charges because nothing could be found to substantiate any of the claims made against him by Katherine. She, however, was committed for trial at the Old Bailey. She had remained calm and resolute throughout the whole proceedings. She was sent to Clerkenwell gaol in the meantime. As with the examinations in Richmond, the case at the Old Bailey in July proceeded for several days. Her defence argued that there was no definite proof that the human remains found in the river were those of Mrs Thomas, and if she could not have been proved to have been deceased, Katherine could not be charged with her murder. It was also said that even if they were her remains, there was no way of knowing how she had met her death – it could have been accidental, not murder. A witness gave evidence of Katherine’s good character, a woman stating how ‘loving and motherly’ she was towards her little son. Yet, the weight of the evidence was such that Katherine was found guilty and so sentenced to death. She then claimed she was pregnant, but upon investigation this was found to be untrue.

  Vestry Hall Magistrates’ Court, 2009. Author’s collection

  Richmond Bridge, 1900s. Author’s collection

  She was sent to Wandsworth prison on 8 July, a gaol she had been detained at in previous years. As a Catholic, Father McEnery saw her on the night before her execution. She then told him that she had a confession to make to the prison governor, Captain Colvill. Katherine told him what happened on 2 March at 2 Vine Cottages:

  I alone committed the murder of Mrs Thomas. I was slightly excited by having taken some drink, and when my mistress came home I was aggravated by her manner. I pushed her downstairs and then strangled her.

  On Tuesday 29 July, at 9am, inside Wandsworth prison, Katherine Webster was hanged by the neck until she was dead. An inquest was carried out on her body, and then she was buried within the prison, quicklime being poured into her coffin.

  There is a story recounted by Henry Mayhew, a journalist and social reformer, who had had a conversation with a street urchin. The lad had told him that Katherine had distributed jars of dripping and bread in Wandsworth in recent times. There is reason to doubt this story, because Katherine spent her time away from work with her son or/and his father in Kingston, so would have not had had the time to have indulged in charitable works, and nothing in her known character suggests she was that way inclined. There is also a much repeated story that Katherine hawked around jars of dripping made from late employer, in Richmond, but there is no evidence to support this ghastly tale.

  This crime was of great interest to the reading public of the time. This was for several reasons. Firstly, it was plain murder, and that was always reported in detail. Secondly, the victim was middle class, which was unusual, because most violent deaths were the lot of the poor. Thirdly, the victim was, unusually, mutilated after death. Finally, because this was a murder by a servant of her mistress – not unknown – as seen, in 1812 two French aristocrats were killed by their servant, but very rare. Most middleclass people in this period had at least one servant, and for them to be murdered by one who was lowly, seemed terrible and unnatural, as if the whole social system was being turned on its head.

  The actual mechanics of the murder are simple enough. Katherine Webster can almost be described as a career criminal, though this was her first violent crime. It seems she probably drank and this, unsurprisingly offended her employer. Being told to leave was probably the final straw. Whether she planned to kill her employer for what she could steal or whether the thought only occurred after the murder (motivated by anger at the loss of her place), is hard to know. After the murder, she disposed of the body and then set about making money from the dead woman’s goods. Yet, as with her previous criminal endeavours, she did not handle them very competently and gave herself away – part of the body being found and Miss Ives seeing her try to masquerade as Mrs Thomas. A swift investigation by Hughes and the police soon wormed out the truth and had her tracked down. After that, her end was near.

  This murder is now known only to students of crime, but in 1879 it was a cause celebre for the reasons mentioned above.

  CHAPTER 8

  Murdered Whilst on Duty

  1881

  We are almost hopeless of ever being able to bring this crime home to the person who committed the murder.

  The life of the Victorian policeman was not always pleasant. Long hours, low pay, physical danger, few days off and being sneered at by writers of detective fiction were among its negative aspects. As The Pirates of Penzance puts it, their ‘lot is not a happy one’. For some officers, it could be fatal, and whilst one might think that police work would be more dangerous among the inner city slums, it could also be lethal in the affluent suburbs, too.

  Burglaries in the larger houses in Kingston had been common in the autumn of 1881. There had been a burglary at The Woodlands, Kingston Hill, on Monday night of 19 September 1881. The bedroom of a servant was entered via a ladder and money and a little jewellery was taken. On the following day, two men were seen leaving a house called Coombe Leigh with a silver box. No one was hurt in either of these two incidents.

  PC Frederick Atkins was only twenty-three and had been in the police force for four and a half years (joining on 14 May 1877). His beat began at 10 pm. In the early hours of Thursday 22 September 1881, he was on his beat on Kingston Hill. One of the detached houses which stood on this road was The Knoll (on the east side of the road, now demolished), then the residence of the wealthy Mr Powys Keck. It was a lonely spot. His household servants included William Short, the butler, James Bloomfield, valet and Harriet Snow, the housekeeper.

  On the previous evening, Short locked up just before 11. Everything seemed to be then safe, as he went to bed himself. Yet at about 1.40am, the household was roused by a number of loud noises just outside the building. Short left his bed and stood at the landing. His fellow servants had also heard the noises and were coming up the stairway to meet him. A search of the house revealed nothing amiss, but when they reached the hall door, they heard a moan.

  Opening the door, Short saw a policeman lying on the ground. His helmet was at his feet and he was evidently in great pain. Short sent a footman to go to the police station for help. No one else was in the vicinity, but near to the prone figure was a ‘dark’ (unlit) lantern, they also found a screwdriver and a jemmy. Short stayed with the injured man, not taking him indoors because he thought he was having a fit. Bloomfield helped move him to a more comfortable position and gave him some water. On removing the man’s tunic they discovered he had not suffered a fit, but had been seriously injured, so they then rebuttoned the tunic. Underneath him was a broomstick.

  It was some time (half an hour) before help arrived, and when it did there was a further wait for a doctor. Inspector Henry Rushbridge, who had ridden on horseback from Kingston police station to the scene, asked his injured colleague, who was PC Atkins, ‘What is the matter, Atkins? Have there being burglars here?’ He said, faintly, ‘I don’t know, sir. ’When Dr Roots, the divisional surgeon, appeared on the scene he concluded that Atkins was dying. He had been wounded in three places – the chest, the groin an
d the abdomen. Furthermore, his hands and face were icy. There were no burn marks on the man’s tunic, so the shots had not been fired at very close range. He was conveyed to the police station in London Road. It was not thought that in his weakened condition, he should be moved to Surbiton Cottage Hospital, which was further away. The Reverend Father Morey, a local Catholic priest, did his best to administer to Atkins, but the constable was unable to comprehend what was going on.

  Kingston Police station, 2009. The Author

  Meanwhile, inspectors Bond, Rushbridge and Crowther were despatching constables to secure any suspects found in the vicinity of Kingston Hill. Yet no one could be found and there was no clue to their identity. Footprints were found, but they only led to Richmond Park, whereafter they could not be traced. It seemed, eventually, that only one man had been involved. Although a man was soon arrested, it was just as quickly learnt that he had nothing to do with the burglary and murder and so was released.

  This individual was Frank Brockwell, a farrier, of London Road, who lived not far from the Knoll. It is not certain why he was first suspected, but the police visited him on the morning of the crime. They found that his boots matched the footprints found near to the Knoll. He was detained at Norbiton and held for seven hours. On the previous evening he had been drinking at the Railway Tavern, Coombe Lane, until about 11 pm. He had then gone home, had supper, gone to bed and had not left home since. His story was accepted and was allowed to go free.

  It was obvious enough that Atkins had disturbed a burglar. The tools already mentioned as being found by the house indicated that was the case. Furthermore, it was noted that a bar from a small window leading to a lavatory near the front of the mansion had been removed. Clearly Atkins had interrupted their operations and that was why he was shot whilst they were escaping. Atkins could not tell much, because when he was on his rounds near the house, he had neither heard nor seen anything before he was shot. In any case, in the early hours of Friday 23 September, Atkins died of his wounds. One of the bullets had pierced his lungs.