Forensic musings

If Elsie's murder had happened today, modern forensic techniques might have been able to tease out some important clues to the perpetrator, even though her remains were found two years after she'd died. It's far too late for that. But here are my own thoughts about what I can gather about the clues on the Down.

William Henry Dill's production of Elsie's blood-stained cuffs, handkerchief and watch seems rather fishy to me. He said he discovered them near the cave in the summer of 1891, the time that Elsie went missing. One cuff, with the watch and chain were said to be on the edge of the quarry, while the other things were below this in some nettles. It seems very odd to me that a murderer would have gone to the trouble of hiding the body carefully in a secluded cave, yet left a really obvious trail of bloody linen and personal items like a watch on full display, which would only have drawn attention to the site.

It also strikes me as a bit odd that it's mentioned  he found the items "in the summer", so one assumes within weeks of the Bank Holiday. Wouldn't there have been an awful smell in the area? If so, you'd think the combination of bloody clothing and rotting smell might have made Dill's report a bit more urgent-sounding. However, I've also got mention that when at the inquiry he specifically mentions he found the objects on the Tuesday or Thursday after the Bank Holiday - so perhaps there would have been no smell at that time.

Dill claimed that he'd showed his finds at the time, to two police constables. One constable (Brunt) was at the inquiry and denied this. So what are we to make of this? Is it "police incompetance" as my OH suggested to me, or is it actually a lie that Dill reported it at all? It seems rather strange to me that the policeman wouldn't take the items if he were shown them. We shouldn't judge Victorian policing by the standard we'd hope for today. Yet, in one newspaper report, The South Wales Echo (5th Oct) says that Dill "was told by a policeman who was informed of [the objects'] discovery not to destroy them, but to keep them in the same condition as they were found. The police officer is also said to have made an examination of the spot at the time, but he did not come across anything which would lead to the conclusion that a horrible crime had been perpetrated." If a police officer really did examine the spot, surely they'd have remembered doing so. Perhaps Dill really did report it and the constable didn't want to be hauled over the coals for  not doing a good job. It's a bit strange though.

Can we believe the South Wales Echo is reporting reliably? Even if they're not, and the police never visited the site, there are issues. It seems contradictory that Dill would be so in awe of the police that he would keep some gross blood-stained bits of material for years, on the off-chance the police might get back to him about them, despite finding nothing - and yet at the same time he witheld something that also looked like evidence, a smashed pocket watch. He even sold it, and that in a rather dishonest way (see below). It doesn't really add up to me (nor, I think, to the Coroner). It's another strange thing that during the inquiry he also produced a broken walking stick with a dent in the handle, something else he'd picked up on the Down. Who'd pick up a broken walking stick and keep it indefinitely - why would you do that? It seems pretty fishy to me.

You can glean that Dill has a few issues. When the Coroner sums up his inquiry in December: "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." One might wonder why he'd been drinking.

The Bristol Mercury reported the Coroner explaining: "The most important baulking [of the police] 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)".

Mr Titley asked him - "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."

He claimed he'd kept them, "hoping a reward would be offered." This is a bit weird, - it was a watch owned by a domestic servant, so I doubt it looked like it was worth a huge amount. It was (I assume) mass-produced: we are told, "the number of the watch is 57,080". It certainly wouldn't have been worth much in its current condition: "the swivel and glass were broken". He couldn't have expected a huge reward, realistically. Why didn't he just sell it straight away - would he really have expected the owner to put an advert in the paper for it?  And Dill describes himself to the court as an accountant - don't accountants come from Respectable Backgrounds? You'd think they'd earn enough not to require a few bob from a lost broken watch. But perhaps this relates to hinted-at financial issues - see below. 

A thing in Dill's possible favour is that after he'd found the first cuff, he allegedly went back to the rifle butts on the top of Bathampton Down, and fetched a man called Field (Dill worked as an occasional assistant marker there). Dill said "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."  Frederick Field agreed that he'd gone with Dill to the quarry and discovered the items. Mr Titley asked him "Would it have aroused your suspicion if you had found it in conjunction with the watch and chain?" - Field said yes, rather implying that Dill kept his previous discovery to himself.

Another strange thing about Dill, is that one witness said he saw him in the bar in the George on the Bank Holiday Monday. William Blick was in the skittle alley there (coincidentally, where Elsie's body would eventually be brought) with the landlord's son, Mr Dolman. Dolman told him one of the men there was Dill. "He said - Do you know who that is? He is the butcher's son, and he has run through his thousands." Blick thought that one of the girls playing skittles ('Dill was sober. He was larking a little with the girls who were there') - could have been Elsie in her light dress.

But the Coroner's summing up included a refutation that Dill was in the vicinity on the Monday: "Respecting the report that the man Dill, who found the bloodstained cuffs, was at the George Inn, Bathampton, on Bank Holiday when Luke disappeared, Sergeant Targett was called and proved Dill was in Devizes Camp at the time." The curious thing is that Dill says himself: "On the Saturday before Bank Holiday, 1891, the Volunteers went into camp at Devizes, returning on Saturday." - at least, that's what is reported in the newspaper. Maybe it's a misprint. As it is, that implies he could have been at the Inn on Monday.

Not that any of it proves a thing. Especially as it depends on the eye witness statement of someone who knew neither person, Elsie nor Dill! It would be interesting if you could put the two together on the Bank Holiday though. Dill certainly sounds like a bit of a strange character. What do we make of the "butcher's son" remark? I found mention of a Mr Ralph Dill, pork butcher, at 11 Bladud Buildings in the Kelly Directory for Bath in 1895. So maybe he was the butcher's son. But "he has run through his thousands" certainly makes him sound like a bit of a mess. In one newspaper report it says "The man who found the things is known in Bath as “Colonel Dill.”" which is rather odd if you don't know the context, and it does sound like a bit of a mickey-take. Still, we cannot blame people for murder on the strength they're a bit strange. But you have to admit, the whole business with Dill is a bit odd.

I'll take a different tack now.

Mr Charles Harper, who examined the remains at the George Inn, said that the fracture to the skull was sufficient to cause death, and might have either been the result of a blow or a fall onto a pointed stone from a height. I'd imagine there was probably the opportunity for Elsie to fall into the quarry and bang her head on a rock - that is to say, her death could have been accidental? Even if she was deliberately pushed, the person doing that might not have wanted to to have killed her. But she didn't 'accidentally' climb into the cave having fractured her skull, did she. Someone was there with her at the time and they hid her body. That's not the action of a sensible guiltless person.

You might say, maybe it was an accident, and then maybe the person there panicked and hid the body. But then why would they leave the blood-stained objects lying about in full view? Wouldn't they tidy away that evidence too? Ahh, I might say, what if the incident happened when it was dark, and the perpetrator didn't see those things? That would make it pretty late though, because in August it doesn't get dark until ten o'clock. Would Elsie be out so late in such a remote dark spot - it's quite a way from middle of town. Besides, if it were dark, and an accident, how would the perpetrator have found the cave? Does this mean the perpetrator already knew about the cave and had such a crime in mind? That is, that it couldn't have been an accident if it happened in the dark. But if it happened in the light, why leave the blood-soaked handkerchief.

And this is another thing that troubles me. Elsie's skull had a "terrible fracture, from which cracks radiated in several directions... a small and almost square piece had been smashed in with great force, though it remained firmly fixed in the orifice." Surely this would be the type of injury that would knock you out if it didn't kill you outright. It therefore strikes me that the person using Elsie's handkerchief is unlikely to have been her. I don't know how easily cuffs would have been detached from a dress in 1893, but why would they have come unattached? Is it not likely that the handkerchief and cuffs were used by the murderer to try to clean themselves up after dragging Elsie to the cave? But why abandon them. I know Victorian forensics wouldn't have been up to identifying the killer from them. But as I say, they'd have drawn unwanted attention to the site. It doesn't make proper sense to me. Could they have been stashed in the cave and brought out by a dog or fox? But then if animals had got to the body that early, there would have been a smell when they chewed open the body.

"Frank Clark, who picked up a woman’s hat on the 7^th of August, 1891, said that on the previous Bank Holiday he saw a man at the rocks partly dressed. He said his clothes were stolen while he was bathing, and he should remain in the woods until dark." This is an interesting report, if we can believe it. I wonder what time of day it was. The climb up from the river is pretty steep. I'm not sure why you'd bother doing such a thing - why wouldn't you remain by the river where being partly dressed would look less weird. You can't help wondering if this person had got blood all over their clothes. But this is sheer speculation, like everything else.

I'm confused, and my arguing seems to be going round in circles. I also want to try and trace Elsie's movements that Bank Holiday weekend, and also see how they fit into those of the main suspect, Arthur Coombs. But this will be on the next page.