Who killed her?

from Reynolds Newspaper, Oct 7th 1893

 Two cases began once Elsie's body had been discovered - a Coroner's inquest, and the one at the magistrate's court that concerned Elsie's ex-boyfriend, Arthur Coombs.

After what seems a remarkably short time, the prosecuter for the crown in the latter, Mr. Collins, decided he didn't think he had good enough evidence against Coombs, and that it was worth waiting until a later date when something more convincing against him might have turned up. At the court in Weston he explained "he did not think he should be justified in asking the Bench to commit the prisoner for trial. If he went to trial and the evidence was found insufficient the matter would be closed for ever, whereas if a different course were taken, at any time, if important evidence was discovered, Coombs might be called upon to answer the charge."

Coombs was therefore released on the 28th of October. "The chairman said that although the prosecuting solicitor had made out a case of strong suspicion, the magistrates felt that they were not justified in keeping the prisoner any longer under restraint, and the case would be dismissed."

The public seemed to be very much behind Coombs: "there were deafening cheers in court as Coombs stepped out of the dock and kissed his father. The cheers were renewed as he drove away in a cab with Miss Sheppard. [...] Since his release from custody Coombs has been the recipient of hundreds of letters of congratulation and sympathy from all parts of the country."

The Coroner's inquest continued though, and its summing up took place on December 6th, 1893, in a large room at the George Inn, Bathampton.

The Coroner "described the position of the body when it was discovered, and said that it was evident under no circumstances could deceased have placed herself there. The body was little more than a skeleton, and on a surgical examination it was seen that the skull had been fractured. It must have been a blow of considerable force which caused the injury and he thought it was inflicted by an instrument with a surface that was not very large. There could be little doubt in the minds of the jury that deceased met with her death by foul play – in fact, that a horrible murder had been committed."

"He regretted exceedingly that throughout the case the police should have been baulked in the way they had. No doubt a great deal of it was caused by the lapse of time. They knew the contradictory evidence of which there had been a good deal, and he very much feared that there had been a great deal of what in legal language was known as supprescio veri."

"He had been coroner of that district 27 years, and had never met with similar obstacles in the investigation of such a case. He had to leave the matter in the hands of the jury, who had a problem to solve which he believed, was incapable of solution. Failing a specific verdict, there was only one course open to them, and that was to say that the deceased met her death at the hands of some person or persons unknown."

And that was the outcome. After a "long and tedious case", there was no clear answer.

I feel I'm not in a very good position to comment on the Truth - it was so long ago and I've only been reading newspaper reports. But I've read a lot of them! so if you want, you can find my thoughts on the following pages.