The Bath Chronicle, 5th October 1893



Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette, Thursday 5th October 1893.
The Hampton Rocks Mystery
Arrest of a Bath Man.
Accused Before the Magistrates.
The Victim’s Antecedents.


In last week’s Chronicle we recorded the finding of the remains of a woman in a cave in Hampton Rocks, on Friday the 22nd September, the opening of the Coroner’s inquest and the identification of the remains as those of Elsie Luke alias Wilkie. Since then there have been startling developments in connection with the mystery.

On Thursday a reporter of the Chronicle had an interview with Mrs Restarick, who now keeps a servants’ registry office in Northumberland-place. It appears that the murdered girl went into Mr. Kerry’s service through the medium of Mrs Restarick’s agency. Mrs Restarick has a distinct recollection of the young woman who gave her name as Elizabeth Luke, and her address as 38, Hungerford-road, Lower Weston. She said she desired a situation as a plain cook or a thoroughly good kitchen maid, and the wages she required were £12 to £14 a year. These particulars were given to Mrs Restarick on the 21st March, 1891. Luke gave as her reference, Mrs Davy, housekeeper to Mr. Nicholls, 13, Sussex-square, Kemp Town, Brighton, where she said she had been in service a year and nine months, and only left because of her mother’s illness. She added, however, that she had filled short engagements since then, and this was entered by Mrs. Restarick in her register. The reference was given to Mrs Kerry, but Mrs Restarick believes that no answer was received to the letter sent to the address given.

Luke, who, however, seems to have gone by the name of Wilkie (as explained above) entered service at Cheriton –house on the 25th March, 1891. Mrs Restarick judged the woman to have been from 25 to 30 years of age, and says she seemed to be a quiet and well-conducted servant, very respectable and well-spoken. Mrs Restarick’s books were examined by Superintendent Rutherford, of the County police, and P.S. Edwards.

Our correspondent at Brighton, in answer to a telegram despatched by us, stated that the house, 13, Sussex-square, had changed hands, and that Mrs Davey, the reference given by the girl, had gone.

As the result of further inquiries we learn that Mrs Bryant, of 61, Hungerford-road, Lower Weston, was acquainted with the unfortunate girl. Miss Wilkie (the name by which she was known) worked with Mrs Bryant, who was then Miss Jefferies at Messrs. Deane’s Irish linen warehouse, opposite the Post Office. This was towards the end of 1890 or the beginning of 1891. She described Miss Wilkie as being well educated, of a highly nervous temperament, and twenty-five years of age, and said she could not wish for a better girl. She came from London to Bath, and was a decided Cockney. She did not get on very well at Messrs. Deane’s because of the fainting fits to which she was subject.

She left and took a situation at 3, Norfolk-crescent, the residence of Mr. Dykes, but she did not stop there long; for the fortnight before she stayed with Miss Jefferies, who had in the meantime become Mrs. Bryant, and was living at 38, Hungerford-road. There Miss Wilkie continued to visit till she mysteriously disappeared.

The watch and chain which Miss Wilkie was wearing she stated had been her mother’s. She represented that she had a bosom friend at Turleigh, and Mrs Bryant suggests she was going across the Down to visit her when she met with her death. Mrs Bryant was aware that she attended the Railway Mission Hall, and that she was for a time friendly with a young man named Arthur Coombs, but the engagement, if there was one, was broken off.

At a quarter to five on Thursday afternoon, as a result of investigations m ade during the day, the police arrested Arthur Stevenson Coombs, a young man employed at the carriage works of Messrs. S. and A. Fuller, Kingsmead-street. The charge was that he did during August, 1891, murder Elsie Adeline Luke, alias Wilkie,. Coombs, who is 20 years of age and not yet out of his apprenticeship, lived with his parents at 25, Kingsmead-terrace, and his father and his brother also are employed at Messrs. Fuller’s, the father being a coach bodymaker.

The apprehension was very quietly effected by Supt. Rutherford, of the Weston Division, dressed in plain clothes, who was accompanied by P.S. Edwards, of the County Police, also out of uniform, and Detective-Sergeant Smith, of the Bath Force. A cab was in waiting outside Messrs. Fuller’s premises, and in this Coombs was driven to the Weston Police Station. The accused is said to have manifested much coolness when he was apprehended.

The accused man Coombs was brought up at the Weston Courthouse on Friday and formally charged with the murder before Mr. Murch (Mayor of Bath) who presided, Mr E.T. D. Foxcroft, Mr A. E. Pole, Lieut.-Colonel A. Thrale Perkins and Mr G. Woodiwiss. The proceedings were timed to commence at eleven o’clock, but long before that hour a large crowd had assembled outside the gates of the Police-station. When the public were admitted shortly after eleven o’clock there was a rush for the Session Court which was thronged in a few seconds. Great eagerness was manifested to catch a sight of the accused as he was brought up from the cells. Coombs, who looks much older than 20, seemed to be in a state of agitation and nervousness. He is a young man of middle height, thin and pale, he has a large square nose, full staring eyes and a prominent mouth, the upper lip protruding. He has a mass of curly light brown hair, and no hair on his face. As he entered the Court he said “Good morning,” presumably to the Police Superintendent.  His father was present in Court, occupying  a seat immediately behind the prisoner, his face bore the traces of tears.

Capt. Alison, Chief Constable of Somerset, was present in Court.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Frank Glover) read the warrant which charged Arthur Stevenson Coombs with, that he, during the month of August, in the year 1891, in the parish of Bathampton, in the County of Somerset, did feloniously and of malice aforethought kill and murder one Elsie Adeline Luke alias Wilkie.

Mr E.B. Titley said he appeared to defend the prisoner. He was arrested on the previous evening, and he (Mr. Titley) only received the instructions late at night. It would be impossible therefore for him properly to cross-examine any witnesses who might be brought forward that day. With their Worships’ permission he would reserve his examination until the next hearing. He understood that a remand would be applied for.
Supt. Rutherford: Yes.
The Chairman: You have no objection to the matter going on now?
Mr. Titley: Of course I cannot have any. But it is impossible for me properly to cross-examine the witness now. Of course I may ask one or two questions.
Prisoner having been allowed to sit down at the suggestion of Supt. Rutherford, who said the proceedings might be of long duration, the evidence was proceeded with.

Supt. Mark Rutherford then deposed:--
On Saturday the 23rd of September I received information of the finding of the dead body of a woman in a cave at Hampton Rocks in the parish of Bathampton, and on the Eastern side of Hampton Down. I then went to see a Mr Dill from whom I received the pair of white linen cuffs and pocket handkerchief. They were then in the same bloodstained state as they now are. They appear to be lady’s cuffs and handkerchief. On examining the handkerchief I observe the name on it which appeared to be “A.H.Kerry.” I then proceeded to the Down with D.S. Smith who was with me when I received the cuffs and the handkerchief, to the cave in question. The remains had then been removed. P.C. Wall pointed out the cave to us.

There is a small opening about a foot and a half deep and about four feet wide. It is low down in the ground. Outside this opening there is a large stone, which partly concealed the opening and would make it more difficult to enter. I crawled in feet first and inside found the cave was about twenty feet long and ten or twelve feet wide and about three and a half feet high. In entering the cave there is a slight descent. The floor was composed of loose stones. There was some black dust and hair about two or three feet from the entrance, where the body had been lying. The inquest was opened at the George Inn, on the 26th September, the following Tuesday, on the remains. Before visiting the cave I had seen the remains of the body at the George Inn.

I have, with D.S. Smith and P.S. Edwards of my own force, been making inquiries, and as a result I obtained a warrant on Thursday, the 28th September, for the arrest of the prisoner. Accompanied by those officers about a quarter to five we went to Messrs. Fuller’s Coach-building works in Kingsmead-street, Bath, where the prisoner was employed. D.S.Smith went in and brought prisoner to me outside the works. I said to Smith, “Is this Coombs?” He said, “Yes.” I then said to Coombs, “I charge you with murdering Elsie Adeline Luke, otherwise Wilkie, on or about August, 1891, at Hampton Down.” He replied, “I did not do it. I kept company with her; after that I am of no further use to you.” P.S. Edwards then arrested him.

During the latter part of this witness’s evidence, D.S. Smith and P.S. Edwards left the court at the desire of Mr Titley.
Mr Titley (to Superintendent Rutherford): Did you find the prisoner at Messrs. Fuller’s carriage works?
Witness: That was where he was brought out of.
Mr Pole suggested to Mr. Titley that if he meant to reserve his cross-examination he should not ask questions then. Mr Titley said perhaps it would be better, and did not further examine the witness.

P.S. Edwards said: I am stationed at Batheaston, near Bath. Bathampton is an adjoining parish. On Saturday, the 23rd of September, about ten o’clock in the morning I accompanied P.C. Brunt and two reporters and a constable named Wall, of the Bath force, to a cave which is situated at the end of Hampton Dwon, near to the wall which parts Claverton parish a nd Hampton parish. There is a disused quarry about 15 feet deep, and I should think about 20 yards across, and in the side near the Warminster-road there is a cave at the bottom level.

I entered the cave, immediately followed by P.C. Brunt. I got in feet first with some difficulty. The first thing I saw was a leg bone from the knee with an Oxford shoe on it. This was separated from the other part of the remains. I passed that out and moved some flat stones and came upon the other part of the skeleton. The left leg was drawn over the right. All the other bones were mixed up with the garments. The head was detached from the body. It was an uneven floor; there were big stones underneath. The stones covering up the skeleton were large. The stones were in such a position on the remains that they appeared to have been placed there. We carefully collected the remains, placed them in a sack and carried them to the George, Bathampton. Where the bones lay was a deposit of a dark, sticky, mouldy substance, as though the body had decayed. Among the remains was a piece of a pair of linen drawers. On this I find marks in writing ink, which looks like “M.A.K. ,” 75. There also appeared to be parts of an outer dress. The piece of linen has been in my custody ever since. I produce the human hair which I found with the remains, some of which is plaited.

 After prisoner had been apprehended I conveyed him to Weston Station. No conversation took place between us with respect to the charge. I merely said “You appear to be a young man, “ and he replied “I am not yet out of my time.”

Detective-Sergt. Smith, of the Bath police, said: On Saturday morning, the 23rd of this month, in company with Supt. Rutherford, I saw a man named Dill. In consequence of a conversation with him he handed Supt. Rutherford two blood-stained cuffs and a blood-stained handkerchief which I produce. We then went to the George at Bathampton and inspected the remains, and afterwards to Hampton Down with P.C. Wall, who pointed out to us the cave. I went inside with Supt. Rutherford and P.C. Wall, and found it as described by the Superintendent.

Mr Rutherford and myself proceeded to a cottage near the Viaduct inn, where we saw Mrs. Harding. In consequence of conversation with her, she handed me a lady’s small gold watch (produced). Since then I have continued my inquiries, and on Thursday afternoon I accompanied Supt. Rutherford to Messrs. Fuller’s carriage works. Mr. Rutherford remained outside and I went in. I had a conversation with Mr Fuller and prisoner came to me. I had known him since he was a boy. I said, “Arthur, I have some very sad news for you. “ He said, “For me Mr Smith?” And I answered “Yes, for you.” Mr Supt. Rutherford is outside; he is going to charge you with the wilful murder of the girl were found in the cave on the Down. He said “Not me, Mr. Smith?” I said “Yes.” He said “How do you know it is her?” and I replied “We have proved it beyond doubt.” I had told him who the girl was. He went outside with me to Supt. Rutherford, who charged him, when he said “I did not do it.” I then went for a cab and heard no further conversation.

Margaret Anne Kerry deposed: I am the wife of James Kerry, and reside at Cheriton-house, Oldfield Park. In March or April, 1891, a young woman named Elsie Adeline Wilkie, entered our service as cook. She said she’d come from London three or four months previously to nurse her mother in Bath. We had given her notice to leave, but her time was not up when she asked to be allowed to leave sooner, saying a relative in London had died. She was paid her wages and left on Saturday 25th July. I expected her back the following evening to stay a few days to serve her time, but she never returned. I did not know whether she had taken her things, but she left her box. After three months I opened it; it contained one old print dress and one old black one, but not her regular clothes. I don’t know how she removed her clothes and not until I opened the box did I know that she had done so. She had other clothes besides what she wore and what were left in the box (witness was understood to say there were letters in the box, but they had been burnt). I missed a new dress which had been made for my daughter, but I don’t know what became of it. We sent a pattern of the dress to Superintendent Berry. Besides the dress I missed a night-dress, a pair of drawers and a bodice. Of those articles the night-dress was returned to me about a week after Wilkie left, by someone from Kingsmead-street I think.

Witness then identified the bloodstained handkerchief found by Dill as her property. She knew the marking on it which was done by a friend. She also identified the fragments of drawers found in the cave by the marking on the band which was exactly similar to that on a garment produced “M.A. Kerry, 9, 75.” She had no doubt about the linen and the handkerchief being her property. She missed one of her handkerchiefs after Wilkie left.

Witness’s examination being continued, she said: I have no other handkerchief like the one produced. It was a special one brought from India. The cuffs I do not identify. I know the girl had a gold watch and chain. It was a gold chain with a tassel to it. The watch was similar to the one produced. I saw the account in the newspapers about the finding of the body, and the name upon the linen, whereupon I spoke to my husband.

The Clerk:  Do you know if the deceased had a young man?  Witness: She said she had. I did not know the prisoner, and have not seen him until now. The hair produced is about the colour of that of the girl. She told me she was 22 years old. She was a short girl, slightly built. I had noticed she had a nice set of neat teeth. She wore shoes of the style, and quality produced. Speaking generally she was a superior looking girl for a servant. I should think she was of a quick, sharp temper.
The Chairman: Had she any illness when with you? Witness: No. Sometimes she said she felt faint and would go into the garden. She never discontinued her work.

John Edwards said: I am a fishmonger in the service of Mr Clack at the back of the Market. I live at 8, James’-street-west. I have known the accused for about five years. I have known him to speak to. I met him at Monmouth-street Railway Mission Hall. One evening some time ago – how long I cannot say – I had a conversation with prisoner in New-street. He said of the young woman “She ought to be dead or killed.” I knew prisoner had been friendly with the young woman Wilkie; I had seen her at the Mission many a time. I believe I have seen them walking together. I saw them at Sidmouth together when there was an excursion there in connection with the Mission.

Witness was questioned as to what led up to the remark by Coombs. At first he could not remember what took place. He did not think any girl’s name was mentioned by him or by the prisoner, but he understood Coombs referred to Wilkie.The Chairman asked the witness to give a plain straightforward answer. Witness said he might have said to the prisoner, “I don’t see you at the Mission with so and so,” meaning the deceased. The Clerk: Did you say that? Witness: I suppose that’s how it came out. He further added that it happened so long ago, he would not pledge himself to saying it.
Mr Foxcroft: In what way or manner did he say it: angrily, or bitterly, or quietly, or calmly or what? Witness said he did not believe prisoner said it crossly. He never saw him cross. Witness added that when he read it in the paper of Coomb’s arrest the words came back to him.

Kate Bullock, whose parents live at 12, Gloucester-buildings, Swainswick, and who said she was a housemaid, stated: I was in service at Mrs Kerry’s in 1891, when the deceased was there and left. I cannot quite recognise the prisoner. I know a young man came to see her. I don’t know his name. I cannot say who it was for certain. When he came she used to have him in the cellar. He was rather light.
The Clerk: Was his h air straight or curly?
Witness: I believe it was rather curly.
The Clerk: Are you pretty sure about it?
Witness: I’m not quite sure.
She added that the young man came in the evenings and stayed about half-an-hour. She knew that in the week Wilkie was leaving she took two bundles of clothes down the garden and handed them over the garden wall to a young girl witness did not know. Deceased told witness she did not mean to come back. Witness could swear to the shoes produced as being Wilkie’s ; she wore a black straw hat with some light in it; there were no flowers or feathers. She did not say where she intended to stay the evening she left. Witness never saw her again. Wilkie was very short.

William Henry Dill was called. At first he objected to go on the other side of the barrier to give evidence and the Clerk remarked that evidently Dill had been fortifying himself. It was decided not to take his evidence that day and
The Chairman addressing Dill said: Take care in what state you come next time.
Dill: I beg your pardon.
The Chairman repeated the remark.
Dill: I don’t know what you mean.
Before Dill left the court he put on his hat.
P.S. Edwards: Take off your hat in court!
Dill (laughing): I beg your pardon.
He then withdrew.

Annie Hayman, of 11, Kingsmead-terrace, wife of William Christopher Hayman, engine-driver, said: I knew the deceased and the prisoner. I saw them together at the Mission Hall in May, 1891, and I also saw them walking outside together. After the end of May, 1891, I did not see the prisoner with Wilkie often. The girl was frequently in and out of our house from our first meeting her at the Mission Hall. Accused lived with his father at 25, Kingsmead-terrace. On the Saturday before the Bank Holiday Wilkie came to me in the afternoon and asked me to let her sleep at my house until the following Tuesday morning. She said her people had gone away. I could not do so,  but I sent her to Mrs Dillon. On the Sunday morning she called at my house, and I also saw her on the morning of the Bank Holiday, I believe between ten and eleven o’clock, and she asked me if I were going out. I told her no. She said she was going to Turleigh by the two o’clock train. She left, and I didn’t see her again until about five o’clock the same afternoon, when I saw her talking to a woman I don’t know at the bottom of the terrace. She left the woman and walked alongside the river in the direction of the G.W.R. She was alone and was not carrying anything. She was wearing a black straw had with white flowers in it. I can’t tell where the flowers were. I saw Wilkie talking to prisoner on the terrace in the afternoon of the Sunday. I did not see Coombs on the Bank Holiday. I never saw Wilkie after she was walking alongside the river. I had not seen Wilkie in the week previous to the Saturday preceding the Bank Holiday. I understood on the Saturday afternoon she had just left Mrs Kerry’s.

Questioned by the Clerk, Mrs Kerry said she fixed the date when Wilkie left her service as the 25th of July, as her husband went away on the Saturday before Bank Holiday, and she believed Wilkie left on the previous Saturday.

Mrs Hayman, in answer to the Clerk, said on the Saturday afternoon Wilkie told her she had been enceinte for three months. She was not very bright as she usually was, but never said anything to lead witness to believe she would commit suicide.

Harriet Dillon, wife of Andrew William Dillon, clerk to Mr Pratt, assistant overseer for Walcot, said she lived at Kingsmead-terrace; she had known Wilkie about a month previous to the Bank Holiday. She called and said Mrs Hayman had told her witness had children ill. She inquired how they were and asked witness to accept a few roses for them. She called several times afterwards, and on the Saturday previous to Bank Holiday in August she came at three in the afternoon. She said she had just seen Mr and Mrs Kerry off to London until Tuesday morning, and that Mrs Kerry would pay witness if she could accommodate her until their return. Wilkie stayed until Monday morning at half-past ten. Coombs lived next to witness. She had heard Wilkie speak of him, but had never seen them talking or walking together. On the Bank Holiday Wilkie said she was going into the country – Turleigh she believed – for the day. Witness went out for the day, but Wilkie had previously left. They were all out of the house before ten o’clock, and witness never saw her again. When Wilkie came she brought nothing with her, but said she would get a night gown and a best dress. Witness slept with the girl for the two nights, and on the Monday morning Wilkie made the bed and put the night dresses on the pillow. As Wilkie had not returned on Tuesday morning witness concluded she had returned to Mrs Kerry’s, and without seeing any mark on it she sent back the night dress.

On the Saturday evening Wilkie offered her half-a-sovereign or a sovereign to pay the bill, but witness told her to leave it until she left. She had not received anything. Wilkie appeared to be a highly respectable girl, there was nothing about her to attract attention, and she had no idea of anything going wrong. She wore a black straw hat, trimmed with black and cream ribbon and cream flowers. She said she had bought it at Gardiner Brothers’. When Wilkie called on the Saturday afternoon she had on an old black dress and she brought a new light dress and the nightdress with her in the evening. She said she had given £2 10s for the dress.

Prisoner was at this point remanded until Tuesday morning at 10.30. The Bench granted an application by Mr Titley to be allowed to see the prisoner in private and to examine the fragments of clothes.

At Weston on Tuesday Coombs was brought up on remand. For a long time previous to the hour fixed for the resumption of the magisterial inquiry, the approaches to the Court-house were thronged, and when the doors were thrown open the public literally fought their way upstairs in order to obtain access to the Court, and the noise made by the eager contestants was loud and confusing. It was 10.40 when the magistrates took their seats. Mr Murch (Mayor of Bath) presided, and there were also on the Bench—Lieut.-Col A. Thrale Perkins, Mr A.E. Pole, Mr S.F.G. Bythesea, and Mr G. Woodiwiss. Captain Alison, Chief Constable of Somerset, was again present throughout the proceedings. Mr Cannings Collins, acting under instructions from the Treasury, prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and the accused was again defended by Mr E.B.Titley.

Mr Collins, in opening the proceedings, said since the accused was last before the Bench he had received instructions from the Treasury to appear on behalf of the Crown, and assist in that investigation. Considerable evidence had already been given, and they were now more or less in possession of the leading features of the case, and it would not be necessary for him to trouble them with remarks at any length. He should continue to call evidence with reference to the finding of the remains, and also Mr. Harper, surgeon, who would give them the result of his examination of them. He need hardly say that the difficulties in the way of the police in a matter of that kind, where so long a time had elapsed since the commission of the offence were very great indeed, and he (Mr Collins) had been unable to give that amount of attention to the matter which it should receive. After the evidence had been offered  that day it would be his duty to ask the Bench to grant a further remand. It might be convenient if he just addressed a few remarks to them with regard to the evidence he should offer from that day as regarded the prisoner personally as distinct from that part of the case which might be called as having to do with the remains.

In a case of murder, especially in a case where there was an amount of mystery surrounding the circumstances as there was there, the subject of motive was a matter deserving the most serious consideration. Of course in the absence of motive in any individual they would naturally and probably suppose there was no inducement to commit the offence. Whereas on the other hand if they found a motive there was greater probability that a person likely to be influenced by that motive would commit an offence. Of course, motives influenced different persons in different ways. Where men had become entangled with two women in order to be rid of the embarrassment relating to one, crime had followed. With regard to that observation bearing upon the present case, let them see how the evidence stood at the present moment. It had been shown to them by some of the witnesses, indeed the prisoner had admitted he believed, that he had been keeping company with the deceased, and further evidence with regard to that it was his duty to lay before them. It would show that these two were constantly together, and that afterwards they were at all events seen talking together. The evidence went to prove that as late as the Sunday preceding August Bank Holiday, 1891, prisoner was seen to be speaking to the deceased. So their friendship at any rate had continued up to that time. After the arrest of the prisoner two detectives went to his home and there amongst other things they found – there was no concealment – a leather bag with Coombs’s initials upon it. It was not opened until the previous evening and there were then found a great number of letters. There had not been time to read them all but some of them he proposed to read as bearing upon the subject of motive, because they were letters to the prisoner, and kept by him, from a person who signed herself “Sheppard,” and dated Melrose, Wells-road. It was clear from these letters that these parties were keeping company if not actually engaged to be married, and they would find in those letters reference to the deceased woman. The first letter which he would read was as follows:--

February 5, 1891. Melrose, Wells-road, Bath.
Dearest Arthur, -- I suppose you think I am a bother to you, but really I feel so dreadfully sorry you was so upset; do not think no more about her, she is a beast of a girl, cannot call her anything else. If course it cannot be true what she said because it is nearly six months ago she left Dike’s. She left in August, just before we went to the seaside. If course she would have told you of it before, and you would had seen before this time. She only wants to get you back again. Do not take any notice of it. If course your parents would not believe such a girl as her, and if course you would not lower your character for her now. Mind you do not upset yourself no more about it.

 If you are out to-morrow night (Friday) if you do not mind come up, and I will run out to post about quarter-past eight o’clock. 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 do not know I would if I was you. Come up and I will tell you where she lives and her name. If y ou cannot it does not matter. Perhaps I may see you in town Saturday if I come down. She will sure to come to bad. Annie always thought 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 ont think. I expect it is true, about her going to prison and the “industrious” school no wonder. If she accuse people of what they never do she is bad enough for anything I believe. 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 do not take any more notice of it, upset yourself for her. It is not worth while. If you do not come up on Friday I shall look out for you in town Saturday if I am out. I would go to that woman if I was you. She told me true enough everything. Dear, I think I must bring this scribble to a close, hoping to see or here from you soon. From your ever loving friend, Pollie Sheppard.

Mr Collins explained that at one time the prisoner was in the service of Mr. Dykes, traffic superintendent of the Somerset and Dorset Railway; he also remarked that Miss Sheppard always wrote “if course” and not “of course.”
Mr Titley objected to the letters, but Mr Collins said he was entitled to read them as part of his statement. Mr Collins then read an extract from a letter, dated the 9th February, 1891. In it Miss Sheppard said, “My dearest Arthur, -- No doubt you will think I am writing to you very quick. I thought I would write to you a little every day and then I should not forget the news from day to day. I forgot to ask you if you went to that woman. I forgot to tell you her name; it is Mrs. Pain. If you have not been perhaps you will go before Friday, and then you can tell me what she says when you write.” There was a great deal more in the letter, but it did not bear on the matter, and he did not propose to read it.
Mr Titley again objected to the reading of the letters and Mr Collins said it was quite within his province to read letters which were found on the prisoner. He proposed to read them. Mr Titley: The proper time to read them is when they are proved. The Clerk (Mr I Williams) ruled that Mr Collins could read them if he meant to put them in evidence. Mr Collins: Anything found on the prisoner is evidence against the accused.

In answer to Mr Pole, Mr Collins said he only proposed to read those portions of the letters which bore on the case. In a letter dated 10th March, 1891, Miss Sheppard wrote: “Fancy that Elsie Wilkie showing herself down your way. I should think she was ashamed to; just fancy me running in town with my cap and apron. I should think she was proud to think she had one. I expect she thought she looked fetching in your eye again, but she is mistaken. Dearest, I will be down on the Old Bridge, Friday, few minutes after six o’clock.”
On March 17th, Miss Sheppard in a letter said: “Fancy that girl going to the open air meeting and then to the hall also in the vestry. I should think she knew that vestry well, going there so many times. I should think she was ashamed to show her face. She must be out of her mind. I call it wicked mockery for them to try to talk to a girl like her. I really do not know what is bad enough for her. Fancy you seeing her Monday. I suppose she thought if she did not insult you now she was converted, so called, that she might bring you again. She cannot be in a situation to be about the town so much. The baker asked me to-day if she was in Bath. I told him ‘Yes’. He said he thought you and her was going to be married soon. He had a good laugh about her and went.”

On April 5th Sheppard wrote, “Every cloud got a silver lining, but that girl thinks she is going to mar our happiness but she is mistaken, she lives down Oldfield-park, because Emma seen her run up and seen her tare back as though she was mad, a lunatic; she cannot be anything else or she would not act so silly; she had not better say anything to me or she will know the reason for why. I shall let her know that she is talking to someone better than herself.”  On the 25th of April a letter contained the following: “I have some news to tell you Sunday, that girl was took in again last night. Such a joke. I will tell you the rest Sunday. I fancy she can faint when she likes. What do you say. Someone run in here for water. Such a joke. Dearest I am so sorry I sent you I sent you that letter last week, I know you did not take it very well but I hope you will forgive me for sending it, but I was in a little temper then.”

On the 22nd June the girl Sheppard wrote a letter again commencing “Dearest Arthur.” She referred to an accident prisoner had met with a bayonet, and proceeded, “Do not take any notice of that girl, nor speak to her if you see her. She put her friend to waylay me on Friday about nine, but I was in. Emma went to post, so when she was coming in this girl asked her if Miss Sheppard was gone in. So Emma said, ‘It is no business of yours.’ So she told Mrs Titley as she was in the front. Mrs Titley walked out to the gate, and then she went. A great cheek on her part. It shows she is as ignorant as the other. Dear Arthur, I hope we shall not have another such a time as we have had. It is such a upset. I never experienced such a time before in love matters, and I truly hope I never shall again. Hoping you will not worry yourself with her and you will soon be better again. I cannot do anything for you as you are so far away.”

Mr Collins said they had no letters of the prisoner but it was evident he was writing to Miss Sheppard. He was not in a position to say what had taken place between them since the previous letter, but on July 19th Miss Sheppard addressed the prisoner as “Dear Mr. Coombs.” He offered no explanation but the letter was as follows:-- “I am writing to know why it is you are acting so underhanded with me, for if you was a little schoolboy it would be different. Of course you are acting like one. I think it is so ‘too faced’ for you to be as you have been to my face and before my friends and then when you are behind my back to act like you have, as I have shown you no reason whatever. I should be ashamed if I had treated you like you have treated me. I have not said anything to any of my friends about it, as I am really ashamed. You have acted so mean and cruel. If course I cannot say any more than that you have deceived me. I am very sorry now this has occurred that I ever knew you. You could not have meant to meet me last Sunday, when you spoke of it on the Thursday you seen me; as you did not come and I know you had no excuse, as she did not follow you on Sunday. She nodded to you as you passed her on the terrace, and I seen her about twenty-past six. Little does she think what she has said about me and you would come back again. I have one or two friends on the terrace now but not her friends. She is forbidden to have anyone to the house now. The nurse girl had to go at a minute’s notice. I wonder you take any notice of her after she saying what she has about you, and also how you have spoke to me about her. If I was you I would not be such a coward as to take any notice of her. Young man like you being afraid of a girl like her; I am not afraid of her if you are. I would not be such a coward. I have never been deceived in anyone like I have in you. I really think it very wrong of you to treat me in such a cruel manner as if course there is not many girls as would be fooled with as I have. As if course you supposed that you was engaged there is some as would make you pay dear for making a fool of them, but that is a thing I should never take the trouble to do. But if you go on serving girls like you have me, you will get yourself into a scrape some day. If course I think now that you do not care to correspond with me in treating me like you have, but if you have another I hope you will have one as you think will treat you better than I have. I tell you what I mean, I do not go behind your back and tell someone else. Will you kindly return a note or letter as quickly as possible to tell me your reason, as I shall have one. If you do not reply I shall be down on the terrace Friday or Sunday, and I will see you. If course you cannot expect me to write any different to you, after treating me so. An early reply will oblige, yours sincerely, Louie Sheppard.”

This letter showed there was something going on and that the girl was probably the cause of the strife between them. Coombs appeared to have written a letter to Sheppard and it was satisfactory because on the 21st July there was another letter in which the accused was again addressed as “Dearest Arthur.” In the letter occurred the following:--“ I was very pleased to receive a letter at last, I am very glad you have been away for a change. I hope you are looking better now. I hope I shall not have to write another unpleasant letter to you because it goes greatly against me to do so. I should not have wrote at all but I went down to Lucy’s. Mrs Cornock and she persuaded me to write so I thought I would. Dearest Arthur I will freely forgive you this time, but I hope it will not occur again as the upset and worry lately have made me feel quite ill. I suppose I shall see you on Friday as I shall be out. I shall have two or three places to go to. I shall see you outside Stoffell’s in the Market place, If that will suit you about quarter-past six o’clock. “ Miss Sheppard sent love with the letter and several kisses, and in a P.S. said, “Hoping you will forget the past and burn that letter mind.”

Mr Collins remarked that evidently these two women were causing a considerable amount of harassing, and under the circumstances there was the question whether it did not supply a motive for the accused in the absence of a motive against anyone else. With reference to the question of motive, there was nothing to show that the deceased girl was in any way connected with any other man or was known to have been about with any other man but the prisoner. The question of motive in a case like this was all important, and it might be that the position, the situation, of this man between these two women was such that he was worked upon to such a pitch that he was led to do this deed.

Mr Collins, proceeding, said the police found at the prisoner’s house a small brooch. That brooch would be shown to have been given to the deceased girl by a friend who would be called before them. When found by D.S. Smith, the brooch was broken, it was without a pin, but it was only fair to say it was without a pin when given to the deceased. Mrs Hayman, one of the witnesses already examined, would depose that the girl was wearing the brooch on the Saturday preceding the August Bank-holiday. If this were true it was a circumstance of considerable importance. There was another circumstance of considerable importance.

There was another circumstance which it would be his duty to bring before them. On the 5th August prisoner was found to be suffering from an injury to his hand. He was at Mr. Vigis’s shop on the 5th August, but he supposed he was not satisfied with the treatment received, for on the 7th August he appeared to have gone to the Hospital and to have been treated there by Mr. Lace who at that time was the house surgeon. Mr Lace had not seen the man since then up to the present time, and he (Mr Collins) did not know whether he would be able to say it was the same man or not. On the 7th August 1891 Mr Lace treated a man of the name of Arthur Coombs living at 25, Kingsmead-terrace for a wound in the thumb, and from reference to the Hospital book it was seen that the wound was a human bite. It was so described in the hospital books. In fairness to the prisoner he wished to say that Mr Titley had suggested to him that it could be proved that the injury was caused at any rate before Saturday the 1st of August. At present he was not able to say whether that explanation was satisfactory or not. Whoever committed this crime probably engaged in a death struggle on the bank above the cave and that coupled with the disposition of the body would probably lead to some wound on the hand of the man who did it. Up to the present time those were the facts he was able to lay before them, and at the conclusion of the evidence he would ask for a further remand.

Photographs had been taken of the locus in quo; there had been no opportunity to prepare plans, but if they were of assistance they would be prepared. F.J. Moody then deposed to the accuracy of photographs of the cave and its surroundings and of the skull of the victim showing the terrible fracture on the left temple.

The evidence of the witnesses examined on Friday was then read over. Superintendent Rutherford, cross-examined by Mr. Titley said: At the prisoner’s house he was shown the prisoner’s room by his mother and brother. The bag was locked and they did not have it opened until the preceding evening.  He had been told that the accused was in the Volunteers, but he did not know that he was still in the force and acted as body servant to Captain Robertson. Inquiries had been pursued in London. He knew the deceased had a friend at Turleigh – about five miles from Bath – a Mrs Bowles, and that she had been to Limpley Stoke Reformatory, which is about one-and-a-half miles from Turleigh. There was a way down from Hampton Rocks into the Warminster-road. He knew of a statement in the papers that a young man named Arthur Clark on a Bank Holiday saw a man at the Rocks who acted in a strange way. Witness had not seen Arthur Clark, and did not know whether he was there. He had been interviewed. Both constables who were on duty at the time denied that Dill ever showed the bloodstained cuffs and handkerchief to them. He knew the young woman Mary Sheppard was in Court. Mr Titley asked the Superintendent whether it was not a fact that the police had been told they could inspect the letters from the prisoner to Miss Sheppard. Witness: I did not understand that.  Mr Collins: It is the first intimation I have had of it. He received a letter at ten o’clock that morning and it was on the faith of what it contained he made the observations he did in his opening. Supt. Rutherford knew nothing about it.

Mr Titley then read the letter. The first part ran:-- “From inquiries made by me on behalf of the prisoner I have ascertained that the following persons will be able to give evidence on the important question as to where the prisoner was on the evening of the 3rd of August:-- 1) May Sheppard, to whom he was engaged; 2) Mrs Arthur Titley, in whose service May Sheppard was, and still is; 3) Mrs Ernest Eyres; 4) Miss May Shaw.” I ask you, are you prepared to call these witness? Mr Collins—The prosecution is in my hands.  Mr Titley (to witness) – Do you call these witnesses today? – No.
You do not suggest any exception can be taken to either of these witnesses? – No.
Mr Titley then read the rest of the letter, as follows:-- Mr Titley then read the rest of the letter, as follows:-- “Further, with regard to the report in the newspapers of some possible evidence of Mr Vigie, I am informed that Mr Hodges, of 10, Somerset-street, and Miss Coles, of 25 Kingsmead-terrace, can say as to the injury of the hand having occurred before August 3rd; and a Mr James, who was secretary to the sick club, has a book in which the cases are entered will throw a light on the matter. He lives, I understand, in Kingsmead-terrace. In justice to the prisoner I think these witnesses should be called. I have instructed my clerk to notice these last to attend, and before calling Mr Vigis you may like to see them. As to the witnesses on the Bank Holiday question, they will be at the court.” Of the three witnesses mentioned are you calling any to-day or have you seen any of them? – No. Mr Titley (to Supt. Rutherford): Do you propose to call those witnesses? Mr Collins: The prosecution is in my hands. I only received the letter when on my way to the court.  P.S.Edwards repeated the evidence as to the removal of the remains in the cave.

Cross=examined: Mr Harper (the doctor) did not see the remains in the cave. D.S. Smith added to his evidence of Friday last that he obtained the bag containing the letters on the evening of the arrest. There were several bundles of letters in the bag, and he had not had time to peruse them all carefully. The letters read by Mr Collins were included in the lot. Mr Collins said there was a letter on the 24th August, 1891, in which Sheppard said, “I hope your thumb is alright.”  On the 2nd February in a letter she wrote, “I am wondering whether you have heard from Elsie Wilkie.” That identified the woman who was mentioned in the letters; throughout in various places the name of the woman was mentioned.

Mr Titley objected to the letters being put in unless the person who wrote them was called. The young woman Sheppard who wrote them was in court and could be called. The Clerk and Mr Pole informed Mr Collins that the letter could not be regarded as evidence unless the woman was called. Mr Collins contended that it did not devolve on the prosecution to produce the person who wrote the letter. Whether she would be called was a question which required grave consideration knowing as they did from the letter her feelings towards the deceased. The Bench decided that if Mr Collins endeavoured to prove motive from the letters he must produce the writer.

D.S.Smith cross-examined, said he had known the accused all his life. As far as he knew he was a very well-conducted young man. He knew he was engaged to Mary Sheppard. Mr Titley: And about to be married? Witness: I don’t know that, they don’t tell me all their secrets. The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Glover): Perhaps the young woman will tell us that. Cross-examination continued: He went to Melrose to see the young woman Sheppard immediately after the arrest of Coombs, and he did not think she had any idea then that suspicion rested on him. He also went on Monday evening, the 2nd October. She then said she went to the Theatre with Coombs on the night of August 3rd, 1891, Bank Holiday.
Mr Titley: Did you ask her what the piece was?
Witness: No. I knew it was no use then. She knew what to say then.
In answer to further questions witness said Sheppard told him that the piece they saw was “The Dancing Girl.” She did not give the names of Mrs Ernest Eyres and Miss Shaw as being able to state they saw Coombs at the Theatre with her on that night. Mrs Titley said they went to the Theatre that night. Mr Collins: How can she say that. She can say they went out of the house.

Re-examined by Mr Collins, D.S.Smith said that at the first interview with Miss Sheppard he asked her whether she was with the prisoner on the night of August 3rd, 1891. He asked her three times and gave her plenty of time to think, but she did not answer. He went again to Melrose on Saturday to see Miss Sheppard, but he was told she was too ill to be seen. Miss Sheppard was his cousin and he might say she complained to him in 1891 of the deceased girl having assaulted and annoyed her. Mr. Titley was surprised at the witness stating that; it was not evidence. The Clerk: We won’t put that in.

Mr Kerry was recalled and deposed to the accuracy of the statements she made on Friday. She was now certain that the deceased left her house on Saturday, 25th July, 1891, and not on the Saturday preceding Bank Holiday. Cross-examined: The deceased had an evening out in the week. She could not recollect what evening it was. She went out also on Sundays sometimes in the afternoon. Witness knew Wilkie had a sovereign when she left her house as she had paid it to her, but could not say whether she had any more money.  Questioned by the Clerk witness said she was certain deceased left on the 25th July. Witness’s daughter’s birthday was on the 4th August, and she left home on the 1st August. Her new dress was then missed. Wilkie had left on the previous Saturday. By Mr Pole: She made no entry of paying the girl to which she could refer.

Edwards, the fishmonger, was then re-called as to the alleged conversation with Coombs. He could not say that the excursion of the Railway Mission to Sidmouth when he saw Coombs and Wilkie together was in 1890. He did not know Miss Sheppard. He could not remember what was said to lead up to the remark of Coombs- “She ought to be dead or killed.” He did not know when the Railway Mission went into Monmouth-street, but he knew he saw Coombs and Wilkie there several times.

Kate Bullock, the housemaid engaged at Mrs Kerr’s when Wilkie was there, said she did not remember the brooch produced; she had never seen it before. She thought it was always the same young man who came to see Wilkie; she never saw him in the daylight. By Mr Titley: She had told her mother the young man was short, fair, and with a light moustache. To the best of her recollection that was her opinion of his appearance now.  By the Chairman: The young man would have had to pass through the kitchen to go into the cellar, but witness never saw him in the light of the kitchen. Wilkie used to take him down herself.

Mrs Hayman, of Kingsmead-terrace, was re-called. Mr Titley said the statement of the witness that Wilkie told her she was enceinte was not evidence. It was only hearsay.

It has transpired that the murdered girl Luke, alias Wilkie, was for several years an inmate of the Girls’ Reformatory at Limpley Stoke having been sent there in 1880 on the order of a London magistrate. A representative of the Chronicle on Saturday had an interview with Miss Rodman, who has held the responsible position of matron of the Reformatory for many years. Miss Rodman at once produced the register of this institution, in which full particulars are given concerning each girl received at the school. From this it appeared that Elizabeth “Wilkie” or Luke was sentenced at the Thames Police-court on April 12th, 1880, by Mr F Lushington, the stipendiary magistrate, to ten days’ imprisonment and five years’ detention in a reformatory, the offence being “felony in service.” It was her first conviction. At that time her father, Frederick Wilkey, and her mother, Elizabeth Wilkey, were living at 21, Bedford-street, Commercial-road, London, the father being a bootmaker. Wilkey was her step-father and the girl is described as having one brother and two sisters, three half-sisters and one half-brother. At the time of her conviction she was fourteen years of age. She was discharged on the 3rd May, 1885, having served her full time in the Reformatory. Luke went home when she left. Other particulars mentioned in the book were that the girl’s general health was good, and that her mental capacity was fair. Miss Rodman remarked that most of her girls went into service when they left the Reformatory. But this girl did not, remarked our representative. – No. I could not send this poor thing out, she had such a violent temper.

An entry in the register recorded the fact that in July, 1881, the girl was confirmed at Winsley Church by the Bishop of Salisbury.  Did you see the girl after she went away? – Oh, yes, several times. We always look after our old girls. I visited her twice in London – at Plaistow – which perhaps you know is more out in the country. I saw her at 14, King-street there, in 1886 and 1887. She was then working at dressmaking, going out day by day to a place near her home.
What opinion had you of her relatives? – Well, they seemed to be in very poor circumstances. The mother was a German. They left Plaistow, and I was told by Wilkie – that is the name we know her by – that her father had gone to an emigrants’ home.

What was her conduct in the home? – On the whole it was bad, but we have had many worse. She had such a bad temper, and was a revengeful girl.
What about her appearance? – She was a nice looking girl and very quick and sharp: she was a good worker. She would have been 27 years of age now had she lived; She was nineteen when she left the reformatory.
When did you see her in Bath? –Oh, she often came out here on Sundays. I should say it was about 1891, early in the year, when she first came. I had received several letters from her from London, and she said she was coming back to Bath as she did not get on well at home. I am going to see if I can find any of the letters I received from her between 1887 and 1891. I believe she first came here in 1891.

What did you judge by her appearance? –She said she was in service, and I spoke to her about her dress, as she was dressed rather more than was fit or proper for a servant. I told her I hoped she was living a good life, and she said she was working at the stay factory, but I found that was not true. I well remember the last Sunday afternoon she came out in 1891. I believe it was in July. I do not think it was the Saturday before Bank Holiday. She said she had left a situation and was going back to London about Bank Holiday. She went in to see the girls.

Were there any in the reformatory then she knew while here? – oh no, they had gone, but she knew the mistresses and she stopped about an hour and seemed to enjoy herself.
Had you reason to believe anything was wrong with her? – No, only that she was rather over dressed for a servant girl; I had not the least suspicion of anything. On the Sunday I refer to she said, “I have come to say ‘Good-bye,’ I’m going back to London.” I have never seen her since.

The description given of the remains would agree with what you knew of the girl? –Yes I remember those shoes. She was wearing them on the Sunday and I particularly noticed them as being stylish. However, I did not allude to them especially. She was a nice mannered, and well behaved girl, and whatever she did she did well; the only thing was her violent temper.

I suppose you often had to correct her? – Yes, I had to lock her up in a room by herself and give her a task of needlework, she was a splendid needle woman.

When did you connect your former charge with the murdered girl? – On Thursday last, when I saw the names in the paper. I couldn’t rest until I made known the fact that she used to be here. Miss Sheppard, our lady superintendent, came yesterday afternoon. I told her and I believe she gave information to the police at Bath. I wish they could find the girl who received the clothes over the garden wall.

In answer to further questions, Miss Rodman said the girl when at the reformatory was in Standard V., the highest standard, and was recorded in the register as being “good at lessons.” The deceased, when she visited the home, never brought anyone with her, and Miss Rodman never saw her with a young man. The friend at Turleigh, who had been alluded to in the newspapers, was Mrs Bowles, who before she was married was the head laundress at the Reformatory. Miss Rodman knew that Luke was in the habit of visiting her, and that Mrs Bowles who was a very good-natured woman, had been kind and generous to the poor girl.

After leaving the Limpley Stoke Reformatory our representative lost no time in reaching Turleigh. It is a small hamlet between the village of Winsley and Bradford-on-Avon, in fact, a few houses nestling in one of the most charming spots in a lovely neighbourhood. Mrs Bowles lives in a picturesque cottage just beyond Turleigh-house, for many years the residence of the Rev. C. C. Layard, and now occupied by Mr Applegate. Mrs John Bowles is the wife of a carter and herself is engaged as a laundress; she very willingly gave us information with regard to Wilkie or Luke. She was somewhat annoyed that she had been spoken of as a relative of the deceased, who when in the reformatory was under the charge of Mrs Bowles – then Miss Fanny Spratt – for part of the time. Mrs Bowles was married in 1888 and she appears to have heard and seen a good deal of the deceased since then, in fact, to use her own language, Wilkie had “plagued” her.

How did you come to hear of the girl after she had left the home? – Well, I had a letter from her – I believe it is in 1889 or 1890. She said she was in great distress; that she had been ordered into the country because she suffered from epileptic fits. She said she had a friend in Bath to come to and asked me to help her pay the fare to Bath from London. She enclosed the bill of an excursion and I sent her half-a-crown. It was difficult to find out when she was speaking the truth, but she came to Bath. I am not certain as to dates, but it was in 1889 or 1890. Her friend was Mary Ann Smith, a London girl, also a former inmate of the Limpley Stoke reformatory. Smith said she was married and gave the name of Mrs Stafford, and Wilkie told me her husband had left her. Stafford, or Smith, and Wilkie lodged together at a house on St James’s parade, Bath, opposite the Lighthouse, kept by Mrs Coombes. Deceased then took in needlework.

Asked if she had any idea of Wilkie’s behaviour at this time, Mrs Bowles said she had not, but added: One night when I was ill in bed the deceased came to our house in a pitiful condition between 10 and 11 at night. My husband went down and let her in. She was wet through, and said she did not know what to do. She had nowhere to go as she was unable to pay her rent. She slept her and has done so on several occasions. She wanted me to employ her but she knew nothing of laundry work. However, I gave her sewing work for which I paid her. I cannot remember dates but she frequently came here. Once she told me she thought she could get into Messrs. Deane’s if she had proper clothes to wear, and I know she went there. She would walk out  here sometimes as often as two or three times a week, and I gave her baskets of vegetables to take back, and she always had food here.

Do you know anything about her friendship with young men? – She never came here with any and that was a thing she would keep from me. Once the girl I knew as Mary Ann Smith came out with her. She told me when she came to Bath from London that she was engaged to a young man in London, and that she wanted to get out of his way, but I cannot say whether it was true.

She does not appear to have been truthful? – Indeed no; she was far from it. She was very bad tempered and tiresome.

You seem to have acted very kindly to her, Mrs Bowles? – Well, she said she was in difficulties and could not pay her rent. She also said she only had what she stood upright in. I understood that she was badly treated at home and I have been looking for the letters I received. Did you see her in London? – Yes, in 1886 or 1887 I visited her in King-street, Plaistow. The family appeared to be in very poor circumstances. I saw the father and mother and had a long conversation with the mother. When did you see her last? – I cannot say exactly but it was some time in 1891; she said she meant to go back to London.  She did not come out to Turleigh on the August Bank Holiday? – No, she did not. I should be glad if you could contradict the tales that are about – that she used to give me money, that my husband is her uncle and that I am her half-sister.
Our representative assured Mrs Bowles that he would gladly state the real facts and bade her “Good morning.”

Following up the information obtained from Mrs Bowles, our reporter called at 12, St. James’s-parade, the house referred to. Mrs Coombes has been dead 12 months and the house is now occupied by Mr J Coombes, her married son. He had no recollection of a girl of the name Wilkie or Luke having lodged there, but explained that he was away from home at about that time. However, he remembers a young woman, who was known as Mrs Stafford, having been the tenant of the garret. She worked at the stay factory, but left a long time ago – as Mr Coombes understood – to rejoin her husband was in London. Mr Coombes, we believe, is not related to the young man now in custody.

On Saturday persons visited the cave at Hampton Rocks with the hope of finding the money which the deceased is supposed to have had upon her at the time of her death. On Sunday the cavern at Hampton Rocks, where the remains of the murdered woman were discovered, was visited by thousands of people, the cave being explored as early as six o’clock in the morning, among the earliest to do so being two girls. So large a company assembled at the spot in the afternoon that vendors of ginger beer, apples, &c., with an eye to business, took up their position at the Rocks and apparently did a profitable trade.

[apparent disjoint in article]
Mr Pole: It is too late now to object. It is on the depositions. You should have objected at the time.
The Clerk: There is a heap there (on the depositions) that is not evidence.
Mrs Hayman, asked by Mr Collins, said on the Saturday before the Bank Holiday, Wilkie was wearing a small silver brooch similar to that produced. It was of the same pattern, but brighter than the brooch produced. (The brooch found by the police was tarnished from disuse). Witness added that she saw the deceased on Sunday the 26th July on Kingsmead-terrace. She did not call at the witness’s then. She was alone and not carrying anything.

Mrs Harriet Dillon re-examined, said she could not swear to the brooch produced. She never saw the deceased with it.

This concluded the repetition and cross-examination of the witnesses heard on Friday.

Cecil Rose Herbert Brand, son of Commander Brand, R.N., deposed to finding the skeleton in the cavern, which he pointed out on the photographs produced. They had a candle when they came across the bones as they were going exploring, but there was light in the cave.

William Henry Dill, accountant, repeated the evidence which he gave before the Coroner, as to the finding of the gold watch and chain, two bloodstained cuffs and a blood-stained handkerchief near the scene of the horrible discovery. He said he went to Devizes with the Volunteers on August the 10th. By Mr Titley: I was clerk to the stores to the Volunteers when they went into camp. I have acted as marker for the last four or five years. It all depended whether the sergeant wanted an extra hand. I occasionally slept in the marker’s hut. I was frequently up there in August after the Volunteers returned from camp. The hut was always locked except when someone was there. I have known the Down for 40 years; not every nook, one would have a marvellous memory to know that. There are three ways down to the Warminster-road. I had seen respectable as well as rough people lying about there. I first said where the watch was found at the raffle or soon afterwards. I gave no notice of finding the watch and chain to the police. I wanted them myself, that is the reason why I did not tell the police, even though I found the blood-stained articles besides. I wanted the money for myself. I gave the chain away. I had the handkerchief in my possession for two years. I never noticed the name on it.
The Clerk: Did not the blood on the handkerchief arouse your suspicion? Witness: Not at all. I have seen so much going on on the down that I guessed what game was up.

Frank Clark, clerk, 22, Alexander-road, spoke to finding a woman’s hat on Hampton Down in August, 1891, about 20 or 30 yards dividing the down from the wood. I could not say how far I was from the cave, but it was near the quarry. It was a black straw hat trimmed with black and cream. (On the photograph produced witness pointed out a spot near the mouth of the cave as where he found the hat). Ex-Inspector Beaton, of the Bath force, produced the book in which the finding of the hat was recorded on August 7, 1891. It was (he said) labelled by him and placed on the lost property board. He believed it was hanging there when he left last September. It could not now be found. 

Frederick Field, 16, Herbert-road, Oldfield Park West, assistant marker at the butts at Hampton, said about the 11th or 13th of August, Dill showed him a cuff with blood stains on it. They went in search, and walking from the top of the quarry they found another bloodstained cuff in the nettles near the cave. By Mr Titley: Mr Dill kept the discovery of the watch and chain to himself. I did not suggest that he should bring the cuffs to the notice of the police.By the Clerk: You found three articles covered with blood and yet it did not strike you as suspicious? – Witness: No.

Timothy Cottrell, 2, St Mark’s-place, Widcombe, said he formerly kept the Exeter inn, Southgate-street, where in January or February, 1892, Dill raffled a lady’s watch in his house. He won it with his daughter’s chance. It had been in his daughter’s possession ever since.  By Mr Titley: Dill told me that the watch was given to him by his sister.

Mr Charles Harper, surgeon, deposed to making an examination of the remains at the George Inn, Bathampton, and repeated the fracture to the skull – an inch square on the left side of the frontal bone. The injury could only have been caused by great violence of great force. He should decidedly say that the injury was ante-mortem. By the Bench: It might be the result of a blow or through a fall from a height on a pointed stone. The bones of the fingers of both hands were contracted. By the Clerk: My theory is that something took place on the down, and that she was afterwards thrown into the quarry from the dislocation of the instep. The dislocation could not possibly have been done on the down. By the Chairman: The fall into the cave might have caused the fracture to the skull and the dislocation. The Clerk: The blood-stained garments – can you account for them? Witness: I cannot, but there must have been something done previous to the fall into the quarry.

Mr Lewis Vigis, chemist, Chapel Row, said: I remember a young man coming to my shop in Bank Holiday week, 1891 to have his hand treated. I recognise the prisoner. He had a wound on his right hand. It was an open sore. It was near the thumb or the first forefinger. By the Chairman: I cannot tell whether he told me what caused it. It was Wednesday, August 5th, 1891. I treated him and he came next day. I cannot tell what caused it. He said it was painful, and witness duggested a poultice. I think he told me he was not at work. The injury must have been done twenty or thirty hours. I have never seen him since. By Mr Titley: I made no entry of the wound. I cannot remember whether there was a Liberal fete on Monday, July 27 (laughter).

Mr Frederick Lace, medical practitioner, of Bath, said in August, 1891, he was house surgeon at the Royal United Hospital. He produced the Hospital out-patients book. In it he found the following entry in his own writing on the 7th of August, 1891: -- “Arthur Coombs; aged 19; residence, 25, Kingsmead-terrace; disease bite of thumb, human. Mr Collins: Have you any remembrance of that case? Witness: I have no particular recollection of it. Mr Collins: Or of any person you attended? Witness: No, I cannot say anything about the individual case. The word human denotes that the patient told me it was a human bite. Mr Titley: Did he say anything about having sustained injury at the Liberal Fete? The Clerk: They don’t bite one another at Liberal Fetes (laughter). Mr Titley: I am afraid they did at this one. Mr Titley asked that the lady witnesses whose names he had given to Mr Collins should be called. They could get rid of the whole point about the injury to his hand. The Chairman said when the witnesses for the prosecution had been called then witnesses for the defence might be called. Mr Titley said he was not putting forward witnesses for the defence in order to prevent the prisoner going for trial. He suggested they should be called by the prosecution. He thought it was unfair to the prisoner if they were not called; what they would have to say would destroy any suggestion for the evidence that had been given that the wound on prisoner’s hand had anything to do with the crime. The Chairman said the statement that Mr Titley was making was quite uncorroborated. Mr Titley: The witnesses will show that it had no connection whatever with the crime. Mr A.E. Pole: It is for the prosecution to conduct their own case. This only deals with one particular fact, and the prosecution may want to bring another to rebut what the other has said. The course you propose is quite unusual. Mr Titley: I submit not. The case was then adjourned till Monday next.

Latest Particulars.
When the proceedings at the Weston Court-house concluded on Tuesday afternoon, the accused was taken back to the cells, but before he left the Court he shook hands with his father, the young woman Mary Sheppard, whose letters to the prisoner formed such a prominent feature in the day’s examination, and also with several friends who had managed to obtain a front place in the dense crowd of people which filled the public portion of the Court-house. During the evening Coombs was taken to the Weston Midland Railway station and from there he travelled in the custody of two police officers to Horfield Gaol, where he will be detained until Monday next.

The young woman Sheppard is a native of Chilcompton, and Coombs is well-known at that place, having visited Miss Sheppard’s parents in company with her on several occasions. It is stated that on Friday, the 7th August, 1891, Coombs’s brother was married, and that the accused was present at the wedding. According to the evidence given yesterday by Mr Frederick Lace, a former house surgeon at the Royal United Hospital, this was the day on which Coombs was treated at that institution for a human bite.

A sensational story has been told to police which the detectives are busily engaged in investigating. A young man living in Walcot, who has given his name and address at the Central Police Station, states that he was told by two men that some time ago they were in conversation with the prisoner Coombs. Some sensational murder was at the time attracting widespread interest, and the men were discussing the tragedy. Coombs in course of the discussion is said to have stated, “Well I committed a murder and it has never been found out.” His hearers at the time paid no particular attention to the remark regarding the statement as a joke. Every effort is being made by the police to reduce this narrative to a form in which it could be presented as evidence.

At the resumed hearing on Monday there are many more witnesses to be examined. Evidence will be forthcoming further to establish the identity of the remains found in the cavern at Hampton Rocks. The identification of the skeleton now rests almost entirely on the circumstance that a fragment of the underlinen bore the name of Mrs Kerry, the deceased’s late employer, and that after Wilkie left Cheriton-house the article, the fragment of which fortunately remained, was missed by Mrs Kerry. Inquiries prosecuted by the police have brought to their knowledge that the Oxford shoes found on the bones of the feet were purchased by Wilkie at a bootshop in the lower part of the city. An assistant is to be produced who will depose to the murdered woman buying the shoes, which  he has declared to be the same as those discovered in the cave. This is an important connecting link.

Very general have been the comments upon the fact that the witness Dill had retained the blood-stained cuffs and handkerchief in his possession ever since he and Field discovered them, and in precisely the same condition. It is believed, however, that a satisfactory explanation of this circumstance will be forthcoming, for we are informed that it was mentioned to the police that the things had been picked up and their condition described. The officer thus acquainted with the finding of the linen is said to have directed the man who told him to inform Dill that  he had better keep the articles in the same state as they were when he found them on the Rocks. It is further stated that the police officer in question himself made a minute inspection of the locality, but failed to discover anything which would lead him to suppose that a horrible crime had been perpetrated. Mr Cannings Collins intimated on Tuesday that P.C. Brunt, stationed at Bathford, would be examined by him, and we understand he is to be called on Monday next.

Though the police have exerted themselves to their utmost, they have not yet in their possession the gold Albert watch chain which was discovered with the gold watch. Still they have not given up the quest as fruitless, and they now believe that the chain is in the possession of a party living in a Midland town, from whom they hope to regain it.

The positive statement made by Mrs Kerry that Wilkie left her house on July 25th, 1891, leaves a week’s blank in the movements of the murdered woman immediately preceding her disappearance. She did not take up her temporary abode at 26, Kingsmead-terrace – next door to Coombs’s home – until Saturday August 1st. This is conclusively proved by Mrs Dillon and Mrs Hayman. The latter yesterday, however, deposed that she remembered seeing the deceased on the previous Sunday July 26th. What occurred in this week may be of great importance and efforts are being made to trace Mary Ann Smith, alias Mrs Stafford, who is believed to have been on terms of close acquaintance with Wilkie about this time. This is the woman Mrs Bowles, of Turleigh, spoke of as having lived with the deceased on St James’s-parade. Smith is known to have been a temporary inmate of the Bath Workhouse two or three years ago, but her whereabouts at present is unknown.

Arthur Coombs received his education at the Bathforum school, being a pupil there from 1880 to 1887. Mr Prosser, the headmaster of the school, has a distinct recollection of the boy and gives him the best of characters. He says ‘he was quiet, industrious, and of a genial disposition; he passed through all the standards and shortly after he left school he entered into his apprenticeship at Messrs. S.and A. Fuller’s coachbuilding factory.

Portraits of the victim and the accused:
The young man Arthur Stevenson Coombs, who is charged with the murder of his former sweetheart, has been already described in our columns, but his features are well portrayed in the accompanying picture; also reproduced from a photograph.

No crime in recent years has stirred the feelings of the people locally more deeply or created greater or more widespread interest than what is known as the Hampton Rocks mystery. The unfortunate victim has been identified as Elsie Luke, alias Wilkie, and we subjoin a portrait of her, reproduced from a photograph.

Surroundings of the cave.
The above shows the general surroundings of the quarry or pit in which the cave is situate. The surface of the ground here was probably undermined by the quarrying once carried on, and fell in, and in the course of time the broken and jagged surface has become overgrown with bramble, thistles and suchlike, and in the adjoining pit elm and other trees have attained some size, shutting out a little the view on the north-east extremity of the lovely Warleigh valley, and of the wooded hills stretching away beyond the Avon. Adjoining the quarry are other underground extensive caves or recesses into which also probably in time the surface will fall, and in that case all this portion of the Down will become rough, jagged and broken. The cross seen in the centre marks the position of the Cave, and was placed over the entrance after the remains were found.

The opening to the cave.
This view shows position and opening to cave. The opening looks south, facing the wood with a dwarf wall in front which stands a short distance off. The sward on which the first struggle is supposed to have taken place, and where the man Dill found the watch and chain, is quite flat and the fall from it to the bottom of the pit is a perpendicular one of 15 feet. If Luke or Wilkie was pushed over this, the fracture of the skull would be accounted for, and the dragging then of the body into the cave by the murderer, whoever he was, would be a comparatively easy task. The loose stones about afforded ample materials for covering it up for partially at least filling up the entrance. The remains were found on the left hand side of the opening, the feet being foremost in the cave.

The interior of the cave.
The above shows the interior of the Cave. There was considerable difficulty in obtaining this view, owing partly to the defective light and surroundings, and partly to the want of height in the Cave itself, this being only about three feet. As described by the police witnesses, access is obtained with considerable difficulty, the person entering having to do so backwards on the hands and feet, face downwards. The body was at the spot marked V.

All the foregoing views are from photographs excellently taken specially for the Bath Chronical by Mr B Davis of Somerset-house, Wells-road. The photographs may be had on application at the Chronicle Office, price 1s 6d each.




Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette: Thursday 5th October 1893.
Bath and Country Notes

The Hampton Rocks mystery, or murder, as it may be more correctly called, since there is no doubt there was a murder, the question who did it remaining to be solved, has created widespread interest, which it is not too much to say has intensified to excitement as the details and incidents collected by the ubiquitous news-gatherers have been published from day to day. How painstaking and industrious have been the reporters the Daily Chronicle has borne witness. The bearings of the case, the life history of the unfortunate victim, the story of her love, her mysterious disappearance, and the remarkable discovery of her remains, -- all these had been revealed through the diligent inquiries of our staff ere the judicial proceedings began. The arrest of the young man Coombs on the charge of murder, the suggestion of motive, to free himself from the toils of a woman who had suffered at his hands, when he had transferred his affections to another – this is the theory of the prosecution, and it is formulated with becoming gravity by the learned gentleman who has been instructed by the Treasury to take up the case, than which we have had none more remarkable in this part of the country since the Road murder sent a thrill throughout England. The further development of the case will be awaited with increasing anxiety, and while a sense of pity cannot but be felt for the cruel fate of the poor girl, sympathy will not be withheld from the family of the young man upon whom rests so heavy and serious a charge.

The story of the girl’s life, so far as it has been revealed – for diligent and persistent as have been the inquiries, her birth, parentage and early years are still invested with a cloud of obscurity and doubt – is both sad and pathetic. When yet in her teens she transgressed, and for her offence suffered imprisonment and was for some years an inmate of the Limpley Stoke Reformatory. The training and discipline of that institution seem to have developed her ability and capacity for work, but strong will, hot temper and carelessness of truth appear to have been her failings then and always. Those who knew her say that she was a clever girl, an excellent needle-woman, and did well all she undertook. In her shortcomings was she the victim of heredity, or her environment, or both? She had in her what is called the making of a good and useful member of society, but failed to use the opportunities or to profit by the kindness of which she was the subject. It is needless now to speculate upon what her future might have been; it is just possible that if she could have kept within the sphere of the motherly influence of Miss Rodman, she might have been saved from influences and associations which invariably have a baleful effect upon a disposition naturally wayward and impulsive.

One curious effect of the Hampton Rocks tragedy is the sense of insecurity that it has diffused among all classes. Many ladies have refused to take their walks at evening unaccompanied; fathers have put their daughters under stricter surveillance, and lone spinsters have thought it needful to have a servant to sleep in their bedrooms, to say nothing of the extra attention paid to locks, bolts and bars. This vague terror, weak as it may seem, is testimony to the exceptional atrocity of the crime and the cold-bloodedness with which it was planned and executed. The nearest approach to it in this part of the country was the Leigh Woods murder. In that case the body of the victim, a woman named Pugsley, was found by boys in a secluded part of the Nightingale Valley a week or ten days after the deed was perpetrated. After a while the mystery was cleared up and the murderer, who was a butler in a family at Daventry, Northamptonshire, was convicted and hanged.

There were two similar crimes which, though the perpetrators have not been discovered to this day, helped indirectly to give additional security to life and property in rural districts. We allude to the murders at Frome Woodlands and Priston. Both occurred within a few months of each other, and in neither case were the old constables conspicuous either for their vigilance or intelligence. At Frome, after wasting much time in a Dogberry-like fashion, they tried to vindicate their reputation for sagacity by capturing four or five men, the only evidence against whom was the somewhat evil reputation they had earned. In the case of the Priston crime, two or three persons were pounced upon and arraigned in succession before the justices, but only to be discharged. One of these was a young butcher who happened to be at an auction sale the same day as the murdered man, and was found in possession of an instrument for bleeding cattle, which the sapient constables surmised must have been used to cut the throat of the victim. Another of the apprehended was a poor woman; her guilt was sought to be proved by the fact that she had known the deceased and his circumstances well, and that she went out the same evening as the deed was done, the locality being a field through which the unfortunate man was walking on his way home.

An illustration of the danger of jumping to conclusions occurred during the examination of this woman. At the close of the formal evidence, there was the customary remand ordered, and all were prepared to leave the Court, including the prisoner. She, however, after taking a few steps, returned and clutched the rail of the dock in an agonised matter. She uttered not a word. A death-like silence prevailed for a few seconds, the impression rife being accurately conveyed in a whisper by the Chairman (the late Colonel Blathwayt) to a brother magistrate; “She’s going to confess,” said he. She did nothing of the kind; but gradually releasing her hold of the bar she walked slowly out with the constable. The impotence of the police authorities in these two cases was regarded as a scandal; and the hands of the Government of that day were strengthened by the fact when the County Constabulary Bill was introduced, the necessity for which these untraced crimes were held to demonstrate.

It is to be hoped that the Hampton Down horror will not have to be added to the list of murderous mysteries. That it would have been but for one circumstance is, perhaps, placed beyond doubt. Had not the unhappy young woman appropriated some of her mistress’s apparel, the clue which led to the identification of the skeleton would not have been available. As she was comparatively friendless, she was missed by nobody, and no one would have troubled to inquire whether the find at Hampton Rocks was her remains. There is no doubt who the victim was, and we trust we shall have the same assurance as to the villain who compassed her death under circumstances so horrible.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)