Barbaric Murders - Child victims, lady-killers and bodies in boxes (Infamous Murderers) by Rodney Castleden Page B
Authors: Rodney Castleden
Ads: Link
missing yet, so the newspapers called the case ‘the Barnes Mystery’. The Porters read about the case in their newspaper. Young Robert noticed that the box described in the press was much like the one Kate Webster had made him carry to Richmond Bridge for her. He had good reason to remember it, and the very peculiar way in which it had ended up in the Thames.
Kate agreed a price for the furniture and some of the clothes with Mr Church and he arranged to have them moved. This aroused the curiosity of Mrs Ives, who asked Kate what was going on. In amongst the dresses, Mrs Church later found a purse and a diary belonging to Mrs Thomas as well as a letter to a Mr Menhennick. Mr Church and Mr Porter decided to go and visit this Mr Menhennick, who evidently knew the real Mrs Thomas. The three men realised from what they now knew that the body in the box was probably that of Mrs Thomas. Together with Mr Menhennick’s solicitor, they went to Richmond police station.
The next day, the police searched No 2 Vine Cottages. They found an axe, a razor, some charred bones and one of the handles belonging to the box found floating in the river. It was obvious now that not only was the body in the box that of Mrs Thomas but that Kate Webster was the murderer. On 23 March a detailed description of Kate Webster was circulated by the police.
Kate Webster had meanwhile fled to Ireland with her son. This was not a very intelligent move, partly because it was predictable – it was where she had originally come from – partly because she had told the Porters that that was where she was going. The Irish police found her fairly easily and arrested her on 28 March. She was escorted back to England. At Richmond police station she made a statement and was formally charged with murder. Typically, Kate Webster included some lies in her statement. She tried to incriminate John Church. He, she said, had been responsible for the murder. Poor Church was arrested and charged with murder. Luckily he had a good alibi and had conspicuously helped the police in uncovering the crimes. The charges against him were eventually dropped at the committal hearing, but only after an unnerving interval.
Kate Webster’s trial opened at the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, on 2 July, 1879. It was presided over by Mr Justice Denman. The prosecution was led by the Solicitor General, Sir Hardinge Gifford. Kate Webster was defended by Mr Warner Sleigh.
The prosecution called Mary Durden as a witness. She was a hat maker, and she said that on 25 February, several days before the murder, Kate Webster had told her she was going to Birmingham to take possession of the property left to her by a deceased aunt. This was clear evidence of premeditation. The prosecution encountered difficulties with the matter of identification. There was no direct evidence that the remains found in the box were actually those of Mrs Thomas. The head had still not been found, and without that there was, at that time, no way of being certain whose body it was. Medical evidence was produced to show that all the body parts belonged to one body, and that the body had belonged to a woman aged between fifty and sixty. But that still did not mean that it had to be Mrs Thomas.
The defence weakly argued that even if it was Mrs Thomas, she could have died of natural causes, which seemed rather unlikely. Whoever chopped her up, boiled and burnt her, could not have meant her well or cherished her memory. Henry Porter and John Church gave evidence against Kate, and once again the defence tried to cast suspicion on them and implicate them in the murder. In his summing up, the judge went out of his way to vindicate both Church and Porter, pointing out that they were both men of previous good character.
On 8 July, the jury retired to consider a verdict. It took just over an hour to reach a guilty verdict. Kate once again denied committing the murder. Just before sentence was passed she claimed to be
Kate agreed a price for the furniture and some of the clothes with Mr Church and he arranged to have them moved. This aroused the curiosity of Mrs Ives, who asked Kate what was going on. In amongst the dresses, Mrs Church later found a purse and a diary belonging to Mrs Thomas as well as a letter to a Mr Menhennick. Mr Church and Mr Porter decided to go and visit this Mr Menhennick, who evidently knew the real Mrs Thomas. The three men realised from what they now knew that the body in the box was probably that of Mrs Thomas. Together with Mr Menhennick’s solicitor, they went to Richmond police station.
The next day, the police searched No 2 Vine Cottages. They found an axe, a razor, some charred bones and one of the handles belonging to the box found floating in the river. It was obvious now that not only was the body in the box that of Mrs Thomas but that Kate Webster was the murderer. On 23 March a detailed description of Kate Webster was circulated by the police.
Kate Webster had meanwhile fled to Ireland with her son. This was not a very intelligent move, partly because it was predictable – it was where she had originally come from – partly because she had told the Porters that that was where she was going. The Irish police found her fairly easily and arrested her on 28 March. She was escorted back to England. At Richmond police station she made a statement and was formally charged with murder. Typically, Kate Webster included some lies in her statement. She tried to incriminate John Church. He, she said, had been responsible for the murder. Poor Church was arrested and charged with murder. Luckily he had a good alibi and had conspicuously helped the police in uncovering the crimes. The charges against him were eventually dropped at the committal hearing, but only after an unnerving interval.
Kate Webster’s trial opened at the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, on 2 July, 1879. It was presided over by Mr Justice Denman. The prosecution was led by the Solicitor General, Sir Hardinge Gifford. Kate Webster was defended by Mr Warner Sleigh.
The prosecution called Mary Durden as a witness. She was a hat maker, and she said that on 25 February, several days before the murder, Kate Webster had told her she was going to Birmingham to take possession of the property left to her by a deceased aunt. This was clear evidence of premeditation. The prosecution encountered difficulties with the matter of identification. There was no direct evidence that the remains found in the box were actually those of Mrs Thomas. The head had still not been found, and without that there was, at that time, no way of being certain whose body it was. Medical evidence was produced to show that all the body parts belonged to one body, and that the body had belonged to a woman aged between fifty and sixty. But that still did not mean that it had to be Mrs Thomas.
The defence weakly argued that even if it was Mrs Thomas, she could have died of natural causes, which seemed rather unlikely. Whoever chopped her up, boiled and burnt her, could not have meant her well or cherished her memory. Henry Porter and John Church gave evidence against Kate, and once again the defence tried to cast suspicion on them and implicate them in the murder. In his summing up, the judge went out of his way to vindicate both Church and Porter, pointing out that they were both men of previous good character.
On 8 July, the jury retired to consider a verdict. It took just over an hour to reach a guilty verdict. Kate once again denied committing the murder. Just before sentence was passed she claimed to be
Similar Books
