The Bath Chronicle, Thursday September 28, 1893.
Shocking Discovery At Hampton Rocks.
A Mysterious Murder.
Two boys who are in the habit of exploring the caves on
Hampton Down on Friday last met with an adventure which they little imagined
would fall to their share. They were a son of Commander Brand, R.N., who
resides on Bathwick-hill, and school friend named Emerson. In a small cavern in
one of the disused quarries they came across the skeleton of a woman. The spot
where the discovery was made being outside the city the county constabulary
were informed of the occurrence, and on Saturday morning, guided by P.C. Wall,
of the city police, who was taken to the cave on the previous day by Captain
Brand, P.S.Edwards, of Batheaston, and P.C.Brunt, of Bathford, proceeded to the
cavern where the repulsive find was made. It is a secluded cavity at the
farther end of the cluster of disused quarries, which in summer are a favourite
rendezvous for pic-nic parties. There are two openings into the cavern, but
through only one of the entrances can an adult gain admission. The cave is a
small one, only a few yards in extent, and those engaged in the gruesome
exploration had ample natural light to enable them to conduct the examination.
The remains were so disposed that it would appear the woman
was placed in the cavern with her face downwards; the skeleton – for it was
little more – was not lying at full length, the left leg being drawn up towards
the body. No flesh remained, the bones being dry and mouldy, and the very little
clothing remaining is unrecognisable. The hair, of a light brown shade, clung
in a plated coil, containing several rusted pins, to the back of the head, but
most of it had been eaten into short lengths by rodents. White corsets in a
fair state of preservation and discoloured shreds of garments were attached to
the bones. The shoes, a pair of laced Oxfords, nearly new, were almost perfect
and still on the feet. It also could be seen that the woman had worn black
ribbed stockings.
Unmistakable evidence of foul play was found on examination
of the skull, for on the left temple was the mark of a terrible blow; the bone
is broken and bent in, the fracture being about the size of a penny. Then the
numerous large flat stones covering the remains showed that the murderer or his
accomplices had hastily hidden the body from view.
Some clue to the date at which the woman was thus put out of
sight is afforded by the fact that she was wearing a “bustle,” the steel wire
springs of which were found.
The police officers mentioned, with the assistance of
P.C.Brunt’s son, removed the remains from the cave in less than an hour, placed
them in a sack and took them to the George Inn, at Bathampton, the only
witnesses of the uncanny exhumation being two press-men. At the George the
bones and fragments of clothing were laid on a table in an outhouse to await a
Coroner’s inquest. A close search was made for any trinkets that the victim of
the terrible murder might have been wearing but none was found. It was also
remarked that there appeared to be no trace of a hat or bonnet.
The horrible discovery set the police busily at work, and
Superintendent Rutherford, of the Weston Division, and Detective Sergeant
Smith, of the Bath Police, are endeavouring to unravel the mysterious tragedy,
for there can be no question that the woman was foully murdered. An important
circumstance and one which is with reason thought to bear upon the discovery
has been brought to light. Detective-Sergeant Smith recovered a pair of lady’s
cuffs and an embroidered handkerchief, both saturated with blood, and also a
lady’s gold watch. The cuffs and handkerchief were handed to Detective Sergeant
Smith by a man named Dill, well-known in Bath, where he enjoys the soubriquet
of “Colonel.” Dill, who is at present employed as time-keeper and clerk by Mr
Mahony, builder, upon some buildings at Weston, stated that he was strolling on
the Down at eight o’clock in the morning about two years ago, when he discovered the blood-stained articles at a
spot close to where the skeleton was found on Friday. He also found with them
the gold watch with a gold chain attached. After keeping the watch for some
time, Dill raffled it at the Exeter Inn, Southgate-street, and the winner
chanced to be Miss Cotterell, the daughter of the landlord. This young lady has
since been married to a farmer living at Limpley Stoke, and from her the
officer recovered the watch. It is of 14-carat gold, prettily chased and bears
the number 57080. The chain Dill disposed of privately, and the person to whom
he sold it appears to have re-sold the chain to someone else, but the
detectives expect to recover it. The cuffs and handkerchief Dill seems to have
kept in his possession, for he at once handed them to the police when asked as
to their whereabouts.
A clue to the woman’s identity would seem to be given in the
fact that the handkerchief bears the name “A.H. Kerry” written in marking ink.
Another remarkable incident is that in August, 1891,
corresponding with the date when Dill says he found the cuffs, handkerchief,
and watch, a lady’s hat was picked up near Hampton Rocks by a son of Mr. D.
Clark, headmaster of St. Mark’s parochial schools, and at once brought by him
to the Central Police-station.
Mr Timothy Cotterell, interviewed by a Chronicle reporter on
Monday, said he well remembers the watch being raffled at the Exeter Inn, of
which he was landlord at the time. Dill showed him the watch and said it had
been given to him by his sister. The glass was broken, and Mrs Cotterell
suggested that before the raffle this should be repaired, and the cost deducted
from the proceeds of the tickets. Dill agreed to this; several tickets were
held by members of Mr Cotterell’s family, and the winner chanced to be his daughter,
who is now married to a Mr Harding. Mr Cotterell further remarked that there
was no chain attached to the watch, but he remembered Dill having shown him in
the bar of his house the blood stained cuffs and handkerchief; these he said he
had found while walking on Hampton Down.
Mr Clark, in an interview with the Chronicle representative,
said he had a distinct recollection of his son Frank, who was then thirteen
years old, finding a woman’s hat on Hampton Down, near Claverton Woods, on the
7th of August, 1891, in the evening. Frank, who was there playing
with several school-fellows, brought home the hat and gave it to his mother,
who with presentiment of a tragedy said, “I believe it belongs to someone who
has been murdered, it shan’t stop in the house;” the boy accordingly took it to
the Police-station. Mr Clark on reading a description of the remains in
Saturday’s Chronicle, at once connected the hat his boy had found with the
mystery, especially as it was stated no traces of a hat were discovered; he
went to the Police-station, and reminded the Inspector on duty of the
circumstance, but although an entry of the hat found was brought to light in
the police books the hat itself had gone, and no description of it had been recorded.
Mrs Clark, however, was able to supply the missing
information, for she stated, in answer to inquiries by our reporter, that the
hat was a black fancy open work straw, turned up at the side or back, trimmed
with black and a little cream material, and it looked as if it had been worn
about a month and inside the crown was the name of Gardiner Bros. The hat
appeared to have been on the ground a night or two, as it was wet with dew, but
she said it could not have been there long, as a few days previously her son had been playing on the same spot.
Opening of the Inquest.
At the George Inn, Bathampton, on Tuesday morning, Mr Samuel
Craddock, Coroner for North Somerset, opened an inquest on the remains. Mr
Henry Dolman was chosen as foreman of the jury. Supt. Rutherford, of the
Somerset County Constabulary (Weston Division) was present, and also
Detective-Sergt. Smith, of the City Police.
The Coroner, having examined the remains, addressed the
jury. He said they were summoned to investigate a somewhat unusual case – the death
evidently of a young woman. The published accounts of the finding of the body
certainly presupposed that a horrible and villainous murder had been possibly
perpetrated. That supposition, he might say, was very much accentuated by the
position and place in which the body was found – in a cave at the Bathampton
rocks. No doubt considerable difficulty must have arisen in dragging the body
into the cave, as he was given to understand that the sergeant of the police
could only get into the cave by going backwards, with his legs first. There was
also evidently some method in the way the body had been disposed of. From what
was stated in the published accounts the body was practically covered with
stones, some of which were of considerable superficial area and thickness.
Further, they were given to believe that somewhere about two years ago a watch
and chain and certain linen, a handkerchief he believed, were picked up by a
person named Dill, very near the entrance to this cave; and further, that a hat
belonging to a lady was picked up by some boys about the same time. It was
impossible for him to tell them how long the body had been in the cave. No
doubt conjectures, and reasonable conjectures, would be offered by the medical
man during the course of his examination. As he had said at the beginning of
his remarks, everything led one to believe that a most horrible tragedy had
been committed. He need scarcely say that it would be the duty of the jury to
devote such patience as they possibly could to the investigation of the case. It
was an investigation they could not possibly hurry; it might extend over many
weeks, because it would be necessary for the police to advertise and do
everything in their power to identify that poor woman, and if possible to bring
to justice the perpetrator of this horrible deed. Without further comment he
would proceed to examine the witnesses.
The first witness called was,
Cecil Brand, son of Captain Brand, R.N. of 8 Bathwick-hill,
whose father was present in Court. This witness said that on Friday, the 22nd
September, about 10.30a.m., in company with a friend, named Alec Emerson, he
was playing at Hampton Rocks. They entered a cave, and witness saw a bone; his
friend, lifting up a large stone, found a human skull. There was also a pair of
shoes (produced) on the feet. They saw it was a corpse, and witness went home
and told his father who informed the police.
P.S. Charles Edwards, of the Somerset Constabulary,
stationed at Batheaston, proved removing the remains from the cavern on
Saturday in company with P.C. Brunt. He was guided to the spot by P.C. Wall, of
the Bath police, to whom it had been
pointed out by Master Brand. The cave was in a quarry, about fifteen feet deep,
on the Claverton side of Hampton Down, and it was at the side of the quarry
nearest to the Warminster-road. There was a large stone projecting at the
entrance, and he entered with great difficulty, feet first. The first thing he
noticed was a leg bone with a shoe attached. Stones, some of which were a foot
across and which varied in thickness from an inch to five inches, entirely
covered the skeleton. The left leg was drawn up over the right thigh, the right
leg being extended.
Witness then produced a portion of linen underclothing found
beneath the remains. This was brown with discolouration, but on the band could
be clearly deciphered “H. Kerry,” with traces of another initial before the “H”.
Below was the date “85,” and also a number. The marking was in ink in a female
handwriting, the characters being beautifully formed and distinct. This
marking, which had been done by a good writer, agreed with the name “A.H.Kerry”
found on the blood-stained handkerchief produced at a later stage of the
inquiry.
Mr Harper remarked that from the fragment produced it was
evident the article was hand-sewn and of good quality.
The Coroner then asked if Mr Dill were present, as he
proposed asking the witness about the articles found, and Mr Dill entered the
room. Sergt. Edwards, however, said he had no conversation with Mr Dill and he
must leave that to Supt. Rutherford. He only produced the top half of a walking
stick (of natural wood) which was found on the Down by Mr Dill.
Mr Dill: That was not picked up at the same time or anything
like it.
Sergt. Edwards said he obtained it from Mr Head to whom Mr
Dill gave it to repair.
Mr Dill: That was not picked up near the place but at the
back of Sham Castle. I took it to Head and he said he would splice it for me.
Sergt. Edwards, in answer to a juror, said without doubt had
not the boys removed some of the stones the whole of the body would have been
covered.
Superintendent Rutherford stated that on Saturday last, in
company with Detective-Sergeant Smith, of the Bath Force, he saw Mr Dill. They
asked him if he remembered picking up something on the Down about two years
ago. He said he picked up a gold watch and chain, and also a cuff which had
blood on it, and he said he afterwards mentioned it to a man named Field. He
made further search in company with Field, and picked up another cuff and a
pocket handkerchief. Dill then produced the handkerchief and cuffs and gave
them to witness. Witness found on the handkerchief the name “A.H.Kerry.” The
cuffs and handkerchief were covered with blood. The cuffs bore in print the
name of the style, “Ascot,” and the number “8”. He stated that he had disposed
of the watch and had given the chain to his nephew. Witness and D.S.Smith then
proceeded to the cave and found its condition such as described by P.S.
Edwards.
D.S.Smith, of the Bath Police, corroborated Supt. Rutherford
as to their visit to Dill. On Saturday, in consequence of a conversation he had
with Mrs Harding, she handed witness the lady’s small gold Geneva watch
(produced) with the No. 57,080 on both cases. It also bore the stamped letters “J.D.”
evidently the maker’s mark. Dill admitted, in answer to questions by witness,
that he raffled the watch at the Exeter Inn about two years ago, and that it
was won by Mr Cotterell, the landlord, for his daughter. He said he gave the
gold chain to his nephew Ernest, who witness had ascertained had pledged it for
15s. The pledge ran out, was offered at an auction by Mr. Head, bought in again
and then sold. Witness hoped to be able to trace the chain, which was a lady’s
short Albert. Mrs Harding was Mr Cotterell’s daughter, who won the watch.
Witness added that he could prove the entry made in the police books in August,
1891, of a lady’s had being found on Hampton Down by a son of Mr Clark. He had
seen the lad who found it. The Coroner said he would get that out later on.
Mr Dill stated that the pawnbroker with whom the chain was
pledged was Mr P.C. Young, of Bath-street. William Henry Dill, who described
himself as an accountant, of Rose-cottage, Newbridge-road, Lower Weston, was
then examined by the Coroner. He said he found something about two years ago;
he could not tell the exact date. He kept a diary then and did now, but he
could not find it. About August or September, 1891, when walking over the Down
by himself, about 20 yards from the wall at the father end of the Down, he saw
a blood-stained cuff on the ground. It had a very small plated solitaire in it,
a trumpery little thing. On stooping to pick it up he found a small gold watch
and chain – he believed the one produced. Witness used to assist at the
Volunteer Shooting Butts at marking, and when he got there he showed the cuff
to the markers.
Did you show the watch? – No, only the cuff. Field, one of
the markers, said “Let u s go over and see if there is anything else.” Witness
replied that it was quite in the open and there was nothing else to be seen.
Field, out of curiosity, persisted in going with witness, and Field, looking
over a ravine, saw something white in the nettles, which were very high. Field
dived down and found the fellow cuff, also stained with blood. The cuffs were
found as produced, they had never been touched. Witness then joined Field in
the place which was called a quarry. They beat about the nettles and eventually
found the handkerchief produced. He found the first cuff and watch and chain on
the flat, about four or five feet from the edge of the quarry. The quarry was
several feet down.
How far from the cave was it? – I saw no cave; that’s where
I’m in a fog. I saw a small crevice in the stone which one could squeeze
through. – He should like to say that he
showed the cuffs and handkerchief to two or three of the county polilce, who
were there, on the Down. One of the constables in the room, who came in with
him, was one of them, No. 87.
P.C.Brunt (87)—I’m the constable spoken of; I never saw or
heard anything of it.
Witness: I showed them to you!
P.C.Brunt: No, never.
A Juror (to Dill): You said just now it was No. 87 who came
in with you.
Witness: I looked round and saw his number and thought it
was him.
The Foreman: IT’s a rather funny affair to my eye.
Witness said he was certain he showed the things to two policemen;
he believed one of them was stationed on Combe Down, a tall slight man. It was
a point at which constables met.
P.C.Brunt: About the time in question—
The Coroner (interrupting the constable): It may be
necessary to examine you by-and-by. You have just interlarded his evidence with
a total denial of the fact that Mr Dill told you what he says.
P.C.Brunt: He never showed it to me or told me.
Witness: I’m sorry I made a mistake. It is only a mistake. I
showed them to two policemen.
The Coroner: Where did you show them to them?
Witness: At the hut which the markers use.
Superintendent Rutherford: Were they two constables or a
constable and a sergeant?
Witness: I would not be sure. They were both in uniform.
Superintendent Rutherford: Did you say anything to them
about the watch?
Witness: No, nothing like that.
Superintendent Rutherford: But you had found the watch then?
Witness: Yes, at the same time as the cuff. I was waiting
for a reward to be offered. I wanted to get something out of that.
The Foreman thought it looked rather strange that he should
pick up the cuff and watch and chain, then go back and pick up another cuff and
the handkerchief, and then wait for a reward. He must have thought that there
had been foul play or a bad deed committed.
Witness: I did not.
The Foreman: I think I should or any other man of your
education.
Witness said he did not think anything of the kind. It did
not strike him that there had been any foul play.
The Foreman: It looks rather fishy; that’s what I think
about it.
Another juror: That’s in the vernacular.
The Foreman: What about the stick?
Witness: I could tell you of lots of things I have found up
there.
In answer to Supt. Rutherford, witness said he found the
stick four or five months afterwards just behind Sham Castle. It had nothing to
do with it unless the man roved about the Down for months.
A Juror: You are quite sure about the year?
Witness said he was not certain but he thought it was two
years from what one and another had told him. He should have thought it was not
so long ago as two years.
A Juror: Are you in the habit of sleeping up there at night?
Witness: Not in the habit. I have done so occasionally when
I was marking. They often shot right up to dusk and there was no chance of
picking up the empty cartridges, which have to be returned, the same night; so,
being an early riser, I picked them up in the morning.
The Foreman: You didn’t sleep in that particular cave?
Witness: No; I never slept in a cave, thank you. I had a hut
and bed up there.
Mr Charles Harper, of Batheaston, surgeon, deposed: On
Monday September 25th, at the request of the Coroner, I examined the
remains of the female body said to have been found in a cave on Hampton Rocks.
I found it almost entirely reduced to a skeleton, except on the lower
extremities, which I shall refer to later on. Fragments of clothing partly
covered some of the bones, and the feet were covered with the remains of
stockings, over which were shoes in a very fair condition. All the bones of the
body were lying in a heap on the table, disarticulated with the exception of
the two ankle joints, and the small bones of the hands and feet. Lying
underneath the skull were portions of hair of a light brown colour; on the
hands and bones of the leg portions of dry skin were attached. On examining the
skull on the left side, on the frontal bone near the junction of the parietal a
piece of bone an inch square was found depressed, which could only have been
caused by direct violence of great force, the inner table being also depressed
in the same way. I could find no other mischief in the skull. The bones of the
body were perfect with the exception of the right foot and instep, the latter
being dislocated and an appearance of deformity on the three outside toes which
were greatly contracted and drawn up. The bones of the fingers of both hands
were also contracted. The teeth in the upper and lower jaw were perfect,
including the wisdom teeth, no signs of decay being observed in any of them.
Three or four in the lower jaw were missing, probably having fallen out in
removing the remains.
On measuring the various bones and comparing them with Dr
Humphreys’ tables as given in Tidy’s Legal Medicine I infer that when living
the body measured about 5 feet to 5 feet 2 inches in height, and that its age
would be from 19 to 21 years. From the general character of the bones and the
smallness of the hands and feet it must have been that of a slight person. The
various portions of clothing mixed up with the bones were remains of an under
skirt with figured band attached and spiral wire dress improver with portions
of horse hair used as stuffing adhering; also the back portions of stays,
laced, and front steels. Portions of a flannel petticoat marked with red cotton
probably a washing mark and remains of a slip bodice and part of a linen
collar. Portions of black worsted stocking in good condition, protected by shoe
of right foot which was tightly laced. Back portion of linen drawers buttoned
with small portion of band attached, bearing the name in marking ink of Kerry
with initials H.J. or A.J. with figures below. After examining the cave where
the bones were found which was dry and well ventilated from front and back, I
think it possible that from the appearance of the clothing the remains might
have been there for a considerable period, how long it is impossible to say, as
the skeleton only remained with the exception of small pieces of dry skin
adhering to some of the bones, there being total destruction of the soft parts.
In answer to the Coroner, Mr Harper said it was impossible
to say how long the body had been in the cave. It would depend upon the number
of rats and mice about.
Captain Brand remarked that the place swarmed with stoats.
Mr Harper said he should like to say it was his belief from
the dislocation of the foot that the body was thrown over into the quarry. What
happened on top he did not know, evidently something must have happened there
by the finding of the cuffs and handkerchief. Whether the skull was fractured
in the fall or fractured on the top and the body thrown over he did not know,
but there must have been immense violence to have fractured the skull in the
way it was, and to have dislocated the ankle.
The Foreman: it is very evident it was a foul murder.
The Coroner thought that would be a convenient point at
which to adjourn. There was not much more evidence of moment to be taken then.
It would be necessary to adjourn for a considerable time. The inquest was then
adjourned until Wednesday, 25th October, at 9.30a.m.
The Coroner before leaving made out a certificate for the
burial of “a certain woman,” and this was handed to the police. The remains
will be interred at the expense of the parish, and if necessary they will be
exhumed. Acting upon the advice of the Coroner, Supt. Rutherford will have the
cave and its surroundings photographed, and a plan of the locality prepared.
The marks on the linen also will be reproduced in fac simile. Before the
opening of the inquest the members of the jury had made a thorough inspection
of the cavern.
After the inquest at the George Inn had been adjourned on
Tuesday morning the witness Dill accompanied Detective-Sergt. Smith to the
quarry on Hampton Down, where the cave which contained the remains is situated.
He pointed out the spot where he picked up the bloodstained handkerchief among
the nettles. It is only a few feet from the cavern where the corpse evidently
was concealed at the time Dill discovered the handkerchief.
Another son of Mrs D. Clark, an elder brother of the lad who
found the lady’s hat on the Down on August 7th, 1891, has informed
the police of a somewhat curious incident which is thought to have a bearing on
the tragedy. On the Bank Holiday in August, 1891, which in that year fell on
the 3rd of the month, he states that he was with a picnic party at
Hampton Rocks. They were having tea when they suddenly saw a man walking about
the rocks. He had no hat on and was in his shirt sleeves. Mr Clark says he
appeared to be in an agitated condition, and explained that he had been bathing
in the Avon and that someone had taken his hat and coat. Those who heard the
explanation regarded it as curious as the river is quite a mile from the Rocks.
The man walked away, and the incident was not remembered until the discovery of
the remains. Mr Clark, as far as he can recollect, says the man was between 20
and 30 years of age, and had a light brown moustache.
Remarkable Clue to the Mystery.
Since the above was written information has reached us indicating
that a clue has been obtained to the identity of the body. There is reason to
believe that the remains are of a young girl not of the name of Kerry, but who
was formerly in the service of MR James Kerry, of Cheriton House,
Oldfield-park, and that the portions of underclothing found had belonged to her
mistress, hence the marking with the
name of Kerry. She had received notice to leave her situation, but before its
expiration obtained her wages on the representation that she was going to
London, an uncle having died from whom she was to receive money. This was on a
Saturday, and she was to have returned on the Monday, but did not do so, and Mr
and Mrs Kerry have not heard of her since. It has transpired that the girl did
not go to London at all, but was seen in Bath afterwards, and it is believed
stayed with a friend on Kingsmead-terrace. This friend afterwards took to Mr
Kerry’s some articles of clothing the girl had left behind, and one of these
Mrs Kerry identified as her property. It is known that the girl possessed a
gold watch and chain, having bought the former of a travelling jeweller from
Bristol. The name by which she was known to her employers was Elsie Wilkie; her
home was said to be in or near London, but of this there is some doubt. She
also represented that she had an uncle at Turleigh, near Bradford-on-Avon, whom
she occasionally visited.
Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette – Thursday 28 September
1893.
Bath and Country Notes.
The “Hampton Rocks mystery” is the local sensation of the
week. That “murder most foul” has been committed there is no doubt whatever. At
present, but for the gruesome revelations, the discovery is invested with a
halo of romance. That a young woman should have disappeared altogether without
any inquiry, so far as is known, having been made about her almost passes
comprehension. Who she was, where she came from, how did she die, are questions
which have yet to be answered. We may never know. Yet there is material not
simply for conjecture, but for patient investigation and diligent inquiry. We
want now some of the prescience and tact of a Sherlock Holmes. But for the
prying curiosity of two schoolboys we should have still been in ignorance even
of the commission of a crime. If the unfortunate victim of lust or passion, or
both, was a stranger to Bath, and there is reason to suppose she was, her
murderer certainly was not unfamiliar with Hampton Down, since the cavern in
which the remains were found could not be known to one unfamiliar with the
locality. A casual visitor could hardly have discovered it, and those who knew
of its existence could with difficulty effect an entrance by a method we may
call “backwardation.” But more than one or two murders have been brought home
on less evidence than that of which the police are in possession, and we are
not without hope that the so-called mystery may be divulged. That the victim
did not belong to the uncared for, unfortunate class upon which ruthless
demons, on occasion, are wont to wreak their vengeance, we may fairly conclude
from the relics that have been found and rescued. It remains for the police to
do their work, and, difficult as it may appear, it ought not to be impossible
not simply to identify the person, but to trace her associates, if not the
manner of her death. Since the above was in type evidence has been obtained (details
of which will be found elsewhere) revealing the identity of the murdered girl. She
had been a servant in a family in Bath – that of Mr James Kerry, in
Oldfield-park, but her home and family are not yet known.
No comments:
Post a Comment