Bristol Mercury, October 7th, 1893.
The Bath Tragedy.
Portraits Of The Victim.
The accompanying portraits of the unfortunate girl, the
discovery of whose remains on Hampton Rocks has been the cause of so much
excitement, are reproduced from photographs taken by Mr A. H. Barnes, of Cheap
Street, Bath, during the time that she was in service in Oldfield Park:--
On Tuesday morning at 10:30 the young man Arthur Stevenson
Coombs, who was arrested on Thursday week and charged with the wilful murder of
the young woman Elsie Adeline Luke, whose remains were discovered in a small
cave at Hampton Rocks, was again brought before the Bath magistrates. More than
an hour before the court house was open to the public a large crowd assembled
in the roadway, and the enclosed courtyard was packed to excess. The precaution
was taken of keeping the doors closed till 10:30, but many succeeded in gaining
admittance, and the staircase leading to the court was densely thronged. The
crowd in the courtyard rapidly became greater, and by 10:30 it had assumed such
large proportions that many of the women and youngsters who had attended to
satisfy their curiosity were crushed unmercifully. A minute or so before 10:30
the doors were thrown open, and then the rush for standing room became
positively alarming. Those who succeeded in securing a position in the fore
front were crushed against the benches, and the police had the utmost difficulty
in keeping order. The prisoner’s father, who occupied a place close to the
doorway leading from the cell, again appeared deeply affected, and he was
surrounded by a sympathising band of the young man’s friends and relatives.
The magistrates on the bench were Alderman Jerom Murch
(Mayor of Bath), Col. Perkins, Mr Pole, Mr Woodwiss, and Mr Bythesea. The
prisoner, who was led into court by a constable and conducted to a seat behind
the bar, appeared in good spirits and paid the greatest attention to the
evidence and the remarks of the solicitor for the prosecution, Mr Cannings
Collins, who appeared under instructions from the Treasury.
The prisoner was
again defended by Mr E.B. Titley.
Case for the Prosecution.
Mr Cannings Collins, said that since this case was last
before their Worships he had received instructions from the Treasury to appear
on behalf of the Crown to assist in this investigation. He should call evidence
with reference to the finding of the remains and also Mr Harper, surgeon, would
give them the result of his examination of them. He need hardly say that the
difficulties under which the police
laboured in a matter of this kind, so long a time having elapsed since the
commission of the offence, were very great indeed, and he had been so recently
instructed that he had not been able to give the amount of attention to the
case he would like to. For this reason, therefore, after the evidence it would
be his duty to ask for a further remand. It might be convenient if he offered a
few remarks with reference to the evidence that he had to offer to them that
day, as regarded the prisoner personally – he meant as distinguished from that
dealing with the remains. In cases of murder, and especially in cases where
there was an amount of mystery concerning the circumstances, as there was here, the question of motive he need hardly say was a matter deserving most serious
consideration, because in the absence of motive could any individual suppose
there was any inducement to commit an offence? It had been shown them by some
of the witnesses, and he thought the prisoner had on his apprehension admitted
it, that he had been keeping company with the deceased, and further evidence with regard to this would be his duty
to lay before them. It would be shown that these two were constantly together,
and that afterwards they were, at all events, seen talking together, and the
evidence at present showed that, as late as the Sunday preceding the August
Bank Holiday, 1891, the prisoner was
seen speaking to the deceased. Their friendship had continued up to that time.
After the arrest of the prisoner the detectives went to his home, and there
among other things they discovered – he did not suggest any concealment – a leather
bag with the prisoner’s initials A.S.C., and on that bag being opened they discovered a great number of letters.
There had not been time to read them all – the number was so
great – but some of them he proposed to read to them that day on this question
of motive, because they were letters to the prisoner and received by him from a
person who signed herself Sheppard. They were dated from Melrose, Wells Road,
and it was clear from these letters that the parties were keeping company, if
the girl was not actually engaged to the man. They would find in these letters
references to the deceased woman. The first letter he would read was one dated
5th of February, 1891. It was in these words:--
“Melrose, Wells road, Bath.
“Dearest Arthur – I suppose you think I am a bother to you,
but really I feel so dreadfully sorry you were so upset. Do not think no more
about her. She is a beast of a girl, cannot call her anything else. Of course
it cannot be true what she said, because it is nearly six months ago she left
Dykes. [Mr Collins intimated that he should show in the course of the evidence
that the deceased woman was a servant in the employ of Mr Dykes, secretary or
manager of the Somerset and Dorset Railway Company.] She left in August just
before we went to the seaside. Of course she would not tell you of it before;
and you would have seen before this time. She only wants to get you back again.
Do not take any noticeof it. Of course she would not tell you of it before; and
you would have seen before this time. She only wants to get you back again. Do
not take any notice of it. Of course your parents would not believe such a girl
as her, and, of course, you would not lower your character for her. Now mind do
not upset yourself any more about it. If you are out to-morrow night (Friday)
come up and I will run up to post about quarter past eight. I want to tell you
about that person what me and Annie went to. Perhaps she would be able to tell
you something about her as you don’t know. I would if I was you. Come up and I
will tell you where she lives and her name. If you cannot it doesn’t matter.
Perhaps I may see you in town Saturday if I come down. I will be sure to come
down. Annie always thought that if anything occurred between you and her she
would go home. I should not be a bit surprised if she never came to Bath again.
I don’t think she will; she will not be able to look anyone in the face again,
I should not think. I expect it is true about her going to prison –[Mr Collins explained
that he believed that the deceased girl was some time during her life convicted
of some offence in London and sent to the reformatory at Limpley Stoke] – and the
industrial school. If she accuse people of what they never do she is bad enough
for anything. I don’t see why other people should be upset by her. Through her
hasty abusive temper I should think she was out of her mind. Now mind you don’t
take any more notice of it, or upset yourself for her. It is not worth while if
you don’t go up on Friday. I shall look out for you in town on Saturday if I am
out. Iwould go to that woman if I was you, she told me true enough everything.
Now I think I must bring this scribble to a close, hoping to see or hear from
you.
“Your loving friend,
“Pollie Sheppard.”
Mr Titley—Of course, that is not in evidence yet.
Mr Collins – It is evidence of the letters having been
found.
Mr Titley—Then perhaps the learned clerk will rule that
anything found shall not be considered till in evidence.
However, Mr Collins proceeded to read another letter, dated
the 9th Feb., which stated—
“My dearest Arthur -
No doubt you will think I am writing to you very quick… I forgot to tell
you that woman’s name; it is Mrs Payne. If you have not been, perhaps you will
go over Friday, and then you can tell me what she says, or tell me when you
write.”
Mr Collins explained that there was a good deal more in the
letter, but nothing bearing on the matter. There were a number of long letters
which had no bearing on the case, and which he did not propose to read.
Mr Collins said there was another letter for the same person
dated April 6th, which contained this paragraph:-- “Every cloud has
a silver lining, but if that girl thinks she Is going to mar our happiness she
is mistaken. She lives down Oldfield park, Emma seen her run up and seen her
tear back as though she was mad as a lunatic. She cannot be anything else, or
she would not act so silly. She had better not say anything to me or she will
know the reason why. I shall let her know that she is talking to someone better
than herself.”
Mr Collins—Then there is a nother dated 22nd
June, 1891, which states:--
“Dearest Arthur- sorry to receive the news which I had. (Mr
Collins – Evidently some reference to a bad foot). Don’t take any notice of
that girl; not speak to her if you see her. She put her friend to way-lay me on
Friday about nine, but I was in. Emma went to post. When she passed this girl
asked her if Miss Sheppard had gone in. Emma said, “It is no business of yours.”
She told Mrs Titley, and Mrs Titley walks down to the gate, and she went. It
was a great cheek on her part. It shows she is as ignorant as the other.”
Other letters were read, showing the prisoner’s relationship
with the two girls, and Mr Collins, with reference to the question of motive,
said he should like to explain this. There was no evidence, so far, and nothing
which inquiry had led to, to show that this girl (the deceased) was in any way
connected with any other man. She was not known to have been about with any other man but the prisoner, and so far as
inquiry went it did not appear that any other living being was to be benefited
by her being put out of existence. Therefore the question of motive in a case
of this character was all important, and it might be that the position or the
situation which the prisoner held between the two women was such that he was
led up to such a pitch that would lead him to commit the deed. So much for the
question of motive.
Upon the search or visits of the detectives to the prisoner’s
house they found a small brooch, which it would be proved, was given to the deceased girl by
a friend, who would be called. Then there was another circumstance which it
would be his duty to lay before the Bench, and it was this. The prisoner on the
5th August was found to be suffering from an injury to his hand, and he sought aid of Mr Vigis, chemist, in Chapel row. He
saw Mr Vigis on the 5th and 6th of August, and Mr Vigis
would state that he was suffering from a contused wound. The prisoner did not
seem satisfied with the treatment he received there, and on the 7th
of August he appeared to have gone to the Royal United Hospital and been
treated there by Mr Lace, who was at that time the house surgeon, and would
state that from a reference to the hospital books, it would appear that the
wound was a human bite.
What was very important was that it was so described in the
book. These were circumstances which had come to the knowledge of the
prosecution, and he thought it was his duty to lay them before the Bench. Out
of fairness to the prisoner he thought it right to say this. Mr Titley had
suggested to him that it could be proved that the injury from which the
prisoner was suffering at the time was caused before Saturday, the 1st
August.
Mr Titley—That is so.
Mr Titley then intimated that, with the Magistrates’
permission, he would proceed to the cross-examination of the witnesses heard on
the last occasion.
Mr Collins offering no objection, the Clerk read over the
evidence of the witnesses one by one, for their cross-examination.
Supt. Rutherford Cross-Examined.
Supt. Rutherford’s was first taken. In reply to Mr Collins,
witness said:- Immediately after arresting prisoner I went to his house, and on
asking to be shown the rooms prisoner occupied was shown into a room in which I
found the leather bag produced, marked with the initials A.S.C. It was locked.
There was no key, and I handed it over to Detective Smith. On Monday, the 2nd
inst. In company with the detective, I had the bag opened at a portmanteau
maker’s, and D.S. Smith then took charge of it. I saw bundles of letters in the
bag, but have not examined them. In a small wooden box, without a cover, on the
mantelpiece, I found the keys and small silver brooch produced. The latter has
neither pin nor fastening of any kind.
Cross-examined by Mr Titley – At the time of his arrest
prisoner was following his ordinary occupation. I could not say that he is in
the fifth year of his apprenticeship, but he is in his 21st year, so
that at the time of the alleged crime he must have been 18 years of age. I
believe he had been living with his parents. I have also ascertained that he
has been in the Volunteers. I am not aware that he was a body servant at one
time to a Mr Roberts. I have been informed that the deceased was 25 years of
age, and that besides her situation at Mr Kerry’s she had held two other
situations in Bath. I heard she had friends in London.
Mr Titley—Have you pursued any inquiries in London? – Yes.
Witness, in reply to further questions, said—She had a friend
at Turley, and was, I believe, in the habit of occasionally going there. It is
about two hours’ walk to Turley.
Mr Titley then put a number of questions with the aid of a
plan as to the situation of the cave and means of access to it from the
Warminster road. Asked if he believed tramps could sleep in the markers’ hut,
the witness said he believed it was kept locked.
Mr Titley – Now, there was an account, which I think
appeared in the “Bath Herald,” headed “A Bank Holiday Story.” A person named
Arthur Clark was said to have seen something. Is he here? – I don’t know.
Have you yourself made any inquiries of Arthur Clark? – I have
not seen him.
Has your attention been called to the fact that Arthur Clark
had seen a man acting in a strange way? – I have heard that.
And you have not got him here as a witness? – I have not
seen him.
Now I see that the witness Dill, who did not give evidence
last time, spoke of a man named Field. Is this man forthcoming? – Yes.
Mr Collins – I shall call him.
Mr Titley – Now, do I understand that the articles were
which were produced at the last hearing – the watch, cuffs, and handkerchief –
have all been traced to the original possession of Dill, or taken from him? ==
Yes.
The witness was also questioned as to Dill’s stating at the
inquest that he had shown the cuffs and handkerchief to the county police.
Brunt, who was said to have been one of the officers, denied it.
Mr Collins—I shall call him.
D.S. Smith, cross-examined by Mr Titley, said – I know the
prisoner. He is, for what I know, a well-conducted young man. Miss Sheppard is
engaged to the prisoner, but I do not know that she was shortly to be married
to him. The date on which she became engaged to the prisoner was February,
1891. She told witness she was with prisoner on the August Bank Holiday, 1891,
and
Went To The Theatre With Him.
Mr Titley – To see what play? – I believe she said “The
Dancing Girl.”
Proceeding, witness said that the girl Sheppard did not give
him the name of any person who had seen them at the theatre.
Mr Titley – Did she tell you what time she left Melrose
villa? – She said between five and six o’clock. The witness added that on the
day of the arrest the girl Sheppard could not remember anything about being out
with prisoner on the Bank Holiday in August, 1891, although she was asked three
times. She had not at this time heard of the arrest. In May or June, 1891, the
girl, who was his cousin, complained to him that the deceased had assaulted
her.
Mr Titley—That is clearly not evidence.
Mrs Kerry was then cross-examined by Mr Titley. She said
deceased had £1 paid to her before leaving. She was now certain she left on the
25th of July. Witness thought she was going to London.
Supt. Rutherford, in reply to Mr Titley, said that no money
whatever was found in the cave. The dress was missed prior to the 1st
of August.
John Edwards, fishmonger, was then examined by Mr Collins.
In reply to Mr Titley he said he could not give the time of
his conversation with the prisoner when the latter said that deceased ought to
be dead. Prisoner did not say “it,” referring to the engagement, ought to be
dead; he said “she.” He could not remember the exact words.
The servant Kate Bullock was then examined.
Annie Hayman, in reply to Mr Collins, said that when
deceased visited her on the Saturday night she wore a black dress, but a
different one on Sunday. She could not say whether the brooch produced belonged
to deceased. Deceased wore a similar brooch. It was of a common pattern.
The witness Bullock, recalled, said, in reply to the Clerk,
that to go into the cellar the young man must have passed through a lighted
kitchen. She never, however, saw him go across. She never let the young man
into the house. Deceased took him down.
The witness Dillon was then examined by Mr Collins. She had
never noticed the brooch produced.
By Mr Titley – When deceased left her house on the morning
of Bank Holiday she led her to suppose that she was coming back at night.
This completed the evidence already given, and additional evidence was then proceeded with.
Cecil R. H. Brand, son of Capt. Brand, 8, Bathwick hill,
described the finding of the remains, while in company with a friend named
Emerson.
Mr Collins – Were the bones in any order or simply a heap? –
They were in order.
By the Clerk – We had never seen the cave before.
By Mr Titley – He had seen a few roughish men about on Bank
Holidays. A person falling over the quarry would have to fall a considerable
distance.
William Henry Dill said – I live at Rose cottage, Newbridge
road, and some time ago acted as occasional assistant marker at the rifle butts
on Hampton Down. I was there in that capacity in 1891. On the Saturday before
Bank Holiday, 1891, the Volunteers went into camp at Devizes, returning on
Saturday. I was on the Down on the Tuesday or Thursday in the following week,
and while walking over the Down alone I found a lady’s linen cuff,
bloodstained, and a gold watch and chain. I walked round the Down, and
afterwards at the butts showed the cuff to the markers. The blood on it was dry
and of a deep colour. In consequence of a conversation with a man named Field
we returned to the spot, and looking over the edge of the quarry Field saw
something white in the nettles. They went down and discovered a second cuff
covered with blood. Within two feet of this was the handkerchief produced.
Procceding, witness repeated his evidence as given before the coroner. The
watch produced he should take to be the same. He kept it for four or five
months, thinking there would be a reward offered for it, and then raffled it at
the Exeter inn, in Southgate street.
Mr Titley—Did you give any notice to the police about
finding the watch and chain? – No.
Did you give to the police any notice of the finding of
these blood-stained articles? -- They
were shown to two constables. I was under the impression that Brunt was one of
them.
Mr Titley -- But
finding these blood-stained articles in conjunction with the watch and chain
about the same time, didn’t it occur to you that some foul deed might have been
perpetrated? – No, not in the least. It never did occur to me until this cropped
up. Never thought of such a thing.
The Bench at this point adjourned, for 15 minutes. Upon the
proceedings being resumed, Frank Clark, the youth who discovered the lady’s hat
on the Down some time during August, 1891, was called. He said the name “Gardiner
Bros.” was stamped on the inside. He took the hat to the police station, and
handed it over to an inspector there.
Ex-P.S. Beaton, who was on duty when the hat was taken to
the Central station on the 7th August, 1891, produced the lost and
found book of the establishment, in which an entry of the discovery was made.
The hat was labelled and hung up at the station when he retired from the force,
but he had made a search for it recently and found that it had been destroyed
or removed.
Frederick field, an assistant marker at the Butts, Hampton
Down, deposed to going with the witness Dill to the quarry and discovering the
lady’s bloodstained cuff and handkerchief among the nettles.
Mr Titley – Would it have aroused your suspicion if you had
found it in conjunction with the watch and chain? – Yes.
Mr Collins – Did you find a solitaire? – No.
The Chairman – Didn’t you think it very strange that
articles should be found with such marks upon them? –It did not strike me that
way, sir.
Mr Timothy Cotterell, of 2, St. Mark’s place, a carver, gave
evidence with reference to the raffling of the watch and chain at the Exeter Inn,
about January or February, 1892, at the time when he was the landlord. The
raffle was in favour of his daughter.
Mr Titley – What explanation did Dill give as to the
possession of the watch and chain? – He said it was given to him by his sister.
Mr Titley—Then either what he says now or what he said then
is untrue? – Yes.
Medical Evidence.
Mr Charles Harper, surgeon, who examined the remains at the
George Inn, repeated the evidence given at the inquest. In the course of
cross-examination he remarked that the fracture of the skull might have either
been the result of a blow or a fall on to a pointed stone from a height.
Mr Pole—Did you come to any conclusion as to the cause of
death? – The fracture was quite sufficient to cause death.
Mr Pole—But you do not know the cause? – Non.
The Clerk – From what you saw there would have been, in your
opinion, a struggle on the top before the body was thrown over? – That is my
theory.
The Injured Hand.
Mr Lewis Vigis, chemist, of Chapel row and Monmouth street,
was sworn. He said a young man named Coombs, whom he recognised now as the prisoner,
came to his shop with a contused hand on the Wednesday in Bank Holiday week,
1891. Mr Vigis repeated what has already appeared in the MERCURY on the
subject, and produced his books, where the case was duly recorded.
By the Bench – My memory won’t serve me as to whether he
told me how the wound was caused. I think he told me that the wound had been
painful, and I suggested a poultice.
The Chairman—So far as you can recollect nothing was said
about the cause? – No. I feel almost sure he said he wasn’t at work.
In reply to a further question by Mr Collins, Mr Vigis said
he could not say whether the wound had been treated before. There was no
appearance, so far as he could recollect, of its having been dressed
previously.
Mr Lace, formerly house surgeon at the Royal United
hospital, was then called. He stated that on the 7th August, 1891, a
young man, named Arthur Coombs, aged 19, and residing at 25, Kingsmead terrace,
was treated by him for a wound on the hand. The entry in the hospital book (produced)
was as follows: - “Disease- bite of thumb (human).”
In cross-examination, Mr Lace explained that the observation
in the book denoted that the patient told him it was human.
Mr Titley – Can you remember whether he told you it took
place at the Liberal fete? – I cannot remember. Mr Lace explained that he could
not identify the prisoner.
Mr Titley said there were three persons present who could
say where the wound was inflicted. As the Bench intimated that they would
retire at this point, Mr Titley thought it would be hardly fair that this
should be alleged against the prisoner when the very persons who could speak as
to how the injury was caused were in court.
The Mayor intimated that this would come out in the defence.
Mr Titley 0 But I think out of fairness they should be
called. They would completely destroy the evidence against the prisoner with
reference to the wound on the hand, and the point would be cleared up.
The Chairman – But statements of that kind uncorroborated by
the witnesses themselves will have little weight.
Mr Titley – But the witnesses will corroborate each other.
There are some three or four quite independent witnesses, who will show that
the wound has no connection whatever with this crime. As a matter of fact, it
was caused on July 27th at the Liberal fete.
Mr Pole remarked that the course suggested by Mr Titley was
a most unusual one.
The court adjourned till half-past ten on Monday. The
prisoner was then removed to the cells.
No comments:
Post a Comment