Bristol Mercury, December 9th, 1893.
The Bath Tragedy.
The inquest on the remains of Elsie Adeline Luke, the victim
of the Hampton Rocks tragedy, was again resumed, on Wednesday morning at
Bathampton, before the coroner for North Somerset, Mr Samuel Craddock. The
proceedings on this occasion were held in a large room on the premises of the
George inn, Bathampton, the parish room not being available.
Henry Mitchell, librarian at the Royal Institution, bath,
produced an official record of the state of the weather on August Bank Holiday,
last, which contained an accurate measurement of the rainfall. From 9 a.m. on
the Monday until the same hour on the Tuesday the rainfall was ‘065, chiefly
consisting of a shower between nine and ten in the morning.
John Stone, an ex-policeman in the Bath force, gave evidence
that on the 27th of July, 1891, he was on duty at the gate at the
Larkhall Liberal fete ground. He did not notice any quarrel or disturbance.
Replying to Supt. Rutherford, witness said it was damp
underfoot on the occasion in question, and if a person fell on the ground he
would be more likely to get mud on his
clothes than dust.
Sergt. Target, range keeper for the 1st Somerset
Volunteers, and Lucy Isaacs gave evidence, and the case was concluded.
The Coroner commenced his summing up at ten minutes past
twelve. He described the position of the body when it was discovered, and said
that it was evident under no circumstances could deceased have placed herself
there. The body was little more than a skeleton, and on a surgical examination
it was seen that the skull h ad been fractured. It must have been a blow of
considerable force which caused the injury and he thought it was inflicted by
an instrument with a surface that was not very large. There could be little
doubt in the minds of the jury that deceased met with her death by foul play –
in fact, that a horrible murder had been committed.
During the inquiry a great deal of evidence had been taken
to show motive with regard to one individual – Arthur Coombs. He appealed to
the jury to dispel from their minds any pre-conceived suspicion they might have
formed with regard to Coombs. Having briefly reminded the jury of the deceased’s
history, he added that they might fairly assume that she met her end on or
about August 3rd, 1891, so that a clear interval of two years
elapsed before the discovery of the body. The condition of the skeleton
corresponded pretty accurately with that period of time.
He next read the evidence of Coombs and emphasised portions
of it. Coombs, he remarked, stated that he kept company with the girl, and
dropped it simply because he heard of her previous character – that she had
been in prison and at the reformatory, and had told him a pack of lies from the
beginning. He had told the jury that he never went out with the girl from the
end of January, 1891, but on the other hand they had the evidence of two young
men, Phillips and Clare, who kew the couple well, that the latter passed near
them in a wood during the summer of 1891. He could hardly understand these two
witnesses being mistaken, and he could not disbelieve their evidence, because
they both swore very distinctly that they saw the couple walking up the wood.
Granting that this was correct it did not bear very much upon the case. It
simply proved that at that particular time Coombs was carrying on an intrigue
with the girl after he had become engaged to Miss Sheppard.
Then Mrs Hayman stated that she saw Coombs talking to the
deceased on the Sunday before Bank Holiday. But he would point out that in
regard to the Conkwell Wood outing she was at first mistaken as to the date,
and possibly she made a mistake in this respect also. If however, the evidence
were true, it would not bring Coombs near enough for the jury to record a
verdict of wilful murder against him. They might have their strong suspicions,
but he need scarcely tell them that in an assize court suspicions would never
hang a man, and in the coroner’s court they wanted something more than mere
suspicion for them to establish a prima facie case. It was not for him to
dictate to the jury, but there was one part of the evidence upon which he must
make a few remarks.
They would remember that Mr Titley put in a number of
lettteres as to the good character of Coombs; but he need scarcely tell them
that if the evidence against him was strong they would pay no attention to
them. He regretted exceedingly that
throughout the case the police should have been baulked in the way they had. No
doubt a great deal of it was caused by the lapse of time. They knew the
contradictory evidence of which there had been a good deal, and he very much
feared that there had been a great deal of what in legal language was known as
supprescio veri. The most important baulking they had during the case was the
action of Dill. Words failed him to denounce Dill’s action as he ought to do.
Dill kept the watch and chain for some months, and it was not until February or
March the following year that he tried to get rid of it. Then he raffled it,
and told the landlord it was given him by his sister. Even at that time, if he
had disclosed the real circumstances, there might have been some chance of a
clue being obtained. He could hardly think that there were many men in Bath who
would have acted in the way Dill had done (hear, hear).
Another way the police had been baulked was in the burning
of the letters found in deceased’s box at Mrs Kerry’s. He had been coroner of
that district 27 years, and had never met with similar obstacles in the
investigation of such a case. He had to leave the matter in the hands of the
jury, who had a problem to solve which he believed, was incapable of solution.
Failing a specific verdict, there was only one course open to them, and that
was to say that the deceased met her death at the hands of some person or
persons unknown.
The summing up lasted exactly an hour, and on its conclusion
the court was cleared for the jury to deliberate in private. After the lapse of
a quarter of an hour the public were readmitted. The Coroner announced that the
jury had arrived at a verdict “That the deceased was wilfully murdered by some
person or persons unknown.”
Kate Bullock, a girl who was formerly in service with the
deceased, was called forward and admonished by the Coroner for being late at a
previous sitting of the court, whereby the proceedings were delayed
considerably. He ordered her to pay a fine of 3s 6d.
Mrs Dillon was then called into the room. The Coroner
reminded her that Kate Bullock had stated in her presence that she tried to
tamper with the evidence of that witness. Not only that but she had done the
same with respect to a young man named Maber. She cautioned them both not to
tell the Coroner and the jury all they knew, and she told them she knew a great
deal more than she had said, but that it was for the police to find out, as
that was what they were paid for. He felt that for trying to tamper with a
witness’s evidence she ought to be prosecuted, and with reference to treating
the jury and himself with contempt by not telling them all she knew, it was
really an insult to the court. He cautioned her, and fined her 4s, and
disallowed her expenses.
The man Dill was next called, and was severely censured by
the Coroner. Dill interrupted several times, and the Coroner remarked that he
could see that Dill was plainly the worse for liquor.
The Coroner then thanked the jury for their kind attention
to the case, which had, as he had predicted, been long and tedious. He felt
bound to say that the police had worked exceedingly hard. Sergt. Edwards had
left no stone unturned, and he had been ably assisted by Detective-Sergeant
Smith and the police of Bath.
