A few minutes later George walked into the house accompanied by Reuben Davis. Isaac shouted, ‘What have you done George? You have killed your father!’ George replied by saying, ‘No, no, no, he’s done it himself’. He was then asked ‘Where’s the pistol if he did it himself?’ George explained ‘I took it and hurled it away’. At this point Isaac believed that George was about to run off so he grabbed him to prevent him from doing so, exclaiming, ‘You villain, you have shot your father!’ Sarah and Aaron also accused George of Joseph’s murder, but he persisted in claiming his innocence, saying, ‘Aaron I am innocent. Will you believe me? Shake hands with me’.
Constables George Carling and Charles Ridge were on their beat on Bath Street, and heard the shouted accusations of murder. They entered the house and heard Henry once more accuse George of shooting his father. George denied it yet again and tried to embrace his younger brother, who pulled away in revulsion. George then threw himself dramatically across the body of his father, and kissed him. Constable Carling pulled him off, and on the basis of the accusations made by those in the house, immediately arrested him, saying, ‘I take you on a charge of shooting your father.’
George, who knew the officer, became hysterical and screamed, ‘Give me my father’s big knife. I will have my revenge. I will plunge it through Carling’s heart!’ Ignoring this threat to his life, the police officer held on to his prisoner, while his colleague went for Superintendent Hudson. On his arrival, the superintendent ordered that George be taken to the lock-up.
The superintendent next sent for Dr George Norman, who on his arrival found Joseph’s body surrounded by a great deal of blood, in which he noticed several fragments of brain. There was a massive gaping wound to the left side of the head, from which a large portion of brain was protruding. The doctor concluded that the weapon used must have been held close to the head at the time the trigger was pulled. Following his initial examination, Dr Norman placed the blood and pieces of brain from the floor into a bucket, which he took away for further examination.
Later, the doctor performed a post-mortem, and on closer examination of the head wound, he noted that the entry point was located above and a little behind the left ear. He placed his finger into the head and discovered several bone fragments had been driven into the brain. He further discovered that the shot had passed through the middle lobe of the brain, in a downward direction. Between thirty and forty pieces of shot were removed from the head and brain during the post-mortem.
Coincidentally, the deceased had been a patient of Dr Norman’s, who was therefore aware that Joseph had been right handed. The doctor concluded that the wound that had killed Joseph could not have been caused by his own hand, and therefore the possibility of suicide was eliminated. The most plausible scenario was that whoever had killed Joseph had shot him from behind, and had been standing slightly higher than the victim. Furthermore, the killer, who must have been standing very close to the deceased, would, he believed, have blood on his hand and lower arm and also on the sleeve of any garment being worn at the time of the shooting.
Nevertheless, in a statement he made to the police following his arrest, George persisted with his claim that his father had shot himself. He described his father sitting to one side of the fireplace, and he on the other. His father had reportedly told him, ‘George, you are killing me by inches’, and without any warning, he had produced the pistol and shot himself before George could do anything to prevent him from doing so.
George’s statement continued by suggesting that his father had been threatening to kill himself for some considerable time. In support of this he mentioned a letter he had written recently to his fiancée stating that he believed his father would commit suicide in the near future. However, the police were convinced that this had been part of George’s plan to persuade people that his father was suicidal, in an attempt to divert suspicion from himself and disguise the fact that a murder was going to take place. The police had learnt from other family members that despite Joseph’s past threats to kill himself, none had been made for more than a year.
The inquest into Joseph’s death opened before the coroner, Mr W. Whiston at the Queen’s Head on the afternoon of 3 May. Following formal identification of the body, details of the post-mortem were provided by Dr Norman and the events surrounding the death were described by the Smith family. The police were granted their wish for an adjournment until the following week so that they could continue with their enquiries.
In the days that followed, Joseph’s bank-book was retrieved from Nottingham and Constable Jesse Burdening conducted a search for the murder weapon. He found the pistol 100 yards from the Smith home. The police traced Ann Eyre, one of George’s former lovers, who remembered him saying that he wished his father would die so that he might inherit his fortune. It was common knowledge that Joseph had not made a will as he always stated that he had no intention of dying in the near future. Lace maker Elijah Ellis, who worked alongside George, told of a conversation he had with him a few days before the crime. George had asked Elijah if being the eldest son meant that his father’s money and property would automatically come to him in the absence of a will, should Joseph die. The police interviewed George Kerry, a friend of George’s fiancée Ellen Cox, who lived in Belton, Leicestershire. He stated that a few days before the shooting he had heard George say to Ellen that they would be able to marry in the near future as ‘I expect to receive my fortune next week’. All of this information persuaded the police that they had a motive for the murder, as they were convinced that George had committed the premeditated crime in order to inherit his father’s fortune.
Blood was found on the sleeve of the shirt George was wearing at the time the shooting took place, but unfortunately for the investigators, no witness could be found who could state definitely that they had seen it on his clothing before he threw himself on his father’s body. This could not therefore be used as evidence against him.
Two new witnesses came forward who provided the police with further important information. Sophia Meakin and her niece Harriet Robinson had been walking close to the Smith house at the time of the shooting. Each of them was carrying a candle, which enabled them to recognise George as he entered his father’s house. Almost immediately this was followed by a shot, and fearing for their safety they rushed home, but contacted the police on the following day, having heard of Joseph’s death.
The death of their father and arrest of their brother had been a massive tragedy for the young Smith boys. The strain on Henry became evident at the inquest, where after more than an hour of questioning, he was asked by the coroner if he had ever previously seen the pistol that had been used to kill his father. Henry became distraught and began sobbing. He shouted at the coroner, ‘I have never seen the pistol yet and I don’t want to. You want to break my heart if you can!’
Eventually the testimonies of all the witnesses came to an end and the jury was asked to consider their verdict. They took two minutes to return a verdict of wilful murder against George, who was committed to stand trial at the next Derby Assizes. However, there still remained the need for another hearing before the local magistrates, within a few days of the inquest, at which all of the witnesses, including Henry, had to repeat their evidence in its entirety. With the trial at the assizes due to take place within a few weeks, this would mean Henry having to give evidence that could hang his brother on three occasions in public, and this was quite apart from the questioning by the police in private. This had long been a concern to many, and a correspondent wrote a letter to the Derby Mercury, who concluded his letter with the following sentiments:
The office of coroner is of very ancient origin, equal indeed in antiquity to the office of sheriff, and dates back as far as the Statute 3 Edward 1st; the authority of the magistrates going back to the Statute 34 Edward 3rd. It is true that in an examination before the magistrates the suspected person is compulsively present, but he may generally be present at a coroner’s inquest. At
any rate, the inquest is a transaction of public notoriety, and a prisoner is entitled to a copy of the depositions. I repeat therefore, in such a case as the present what practical good will result from the exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction of the magistrates? It will involve a great sacrifice of time, a large and useless expenditure of money in bringing the witnesses here, perhaps for two or three days, and entails on them the process of mental torture which common humanity suggests should be avoided. Mark the observation of the witness Henry Smith in reply to the searching but necessary examination of the coroner. Ought such scenes to be repeated without necessity?
Yours faithfully
INQUIRER
Derby May 9
Now that the inquest had been concluded, it was possible to arrange Joseph’s funeral, which took place at the local parish church on the following Sunday. It was attended by a large number of mourners, as he was a well-known and respected member of the local community. He had also been an active member of the Manchester Order of Oddfellows, 100 of whom were present at the service.
George’s trial took place at the Derby Summer Assizes, in late July, before Mr Justice Willes. The prosecutors were Mr Boden, Mr Huish and Mr Cave. The accused was represented by Mr O’Brien and Mr Stephen, and when arraigned, George pleaded not guilty to the murder of his father. The prosecution relied on those witnesses who had testified at the inquest and before the Ilkeston magistrates, claiming that the premeditated crime had been committed so that George could inherit his father’s fortune, and that over a period of time beforehand the accused had deliberately set out to convince people that his father had been suicidal and would kill himself in the near future.
The defence called no witnesses, and simply suggested to the jury that all of the evidence was circumstantial. They emphasised the fact that in attempting to withdraw the money from his father’s bank account in Nottingham, George had done nothing illegal. They also raised the history of suicide threats made by Joseph, several of which had been witnessed by other family members. This, it was suggested, meant that their client’s claim that his father had shot himself could not be discounted. True, it might have been difficult for a right-handed man to cause the head wound that had killed him, but the prosecution had failed to produce any witness who had seen George fire the fatal shot. There was thus sufficient room for doubt that would enable the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
Nevertheless, following a brief retirement, the jury returned with a verdict of guilty, and the judge prepared to sentence the prisoner to death. As he did so, in line with tradition, he asked George if he wished to say anything before sentence was passed. Usually there was a simple shake of the head or a murmured declaration of innocence from the dock. However, George subjected the court to a tirade which lasted for several minutes.
Jumping on his chair in the dock, he proclaimed his innocence to those in the courtroom, and claimed that all of the prosecution witnesses had lied. He beat his chest with a clenched fist shouting, ‘I am innocent, and I stand here with a clear conscience and an upright heart and contented mind. It is not likely that my hand is stained with my father’s blood. No, I loved him and would not shed his blood!’ Eventually he calmed down and resumed his seat.
An enraged Judge Willes sentenced the prisoner to death, and told him that the jury had reached the only verdict that was possible based on the evidence they had heard. Furthermore, his crime was so heinous he should hold out no hope of a reprieve, as he would surely hang.
As he awaited execution, George was visited regularly by his family and fiancée, who did not abandon him. Among those who visited the gaol on several occasions was Henry, but during one of the visits George cried out to him, ‘Henry, look what you have done to me!’ This so upset the youngster that he refused to see his brother again.
During the night of Thursday, 15 August, the eve of his execution, George wrote out a full confession. He died bravely on the following morning before a large crowd outside Derby Gaol.
5
MURDER IN THE STREET
Chesterfield, 1862
To those who knew him prior to the death of his wife in the summer of 1861, Richard Thorley, who lived in Chesterfield and who worked as a striker at Frost’s factory, was a decent, hard working and level headed young man. However, his life was to change in the most dramatic fashion after he met Eliza Morrow, an attractive young Irish woman who worked at Brownsells Mill. A friendship developed, and although Eliza did not want their relationship to become too serious, he became infatuated with her.
Annoyed by what he saw as her rejection of his advances, he assaulted her over the Christmas period of 1861, and although her friends urged her to report the incident to the police, she refused to do so. She had to take time off work due to her injuries, and he gave her the equivalent of one week’s wage, 7s 6d, together with three rabbits and a sack of vegetables for her Christmas dinner. She accepted the gifts but made it clear that she wanted nothing more to do with him. However, her decision not to contact the police and to accept the money and food seems to have suggested to his distorted way of thinking that she was fond of him.
Over the next few weeks, he pestered her continuously. He visited her home at 4 Agard Street almost daily, despite her repeatedly telling him to stay away. She told friends that he had threatened to kill her if she would not go out with him, or if he saw her with any other man. He became especially angry when he wrongly suspected that she had formed a relationship with a soldier, in whose company he saw her, but who was in fact her cousin, and who was courting Eliza’s friend Kate Griffiths.
Richard Thorley. (Author’s collection)
Thorley began drinking heavily, and it was when very drunk that he went to Eliza’s house on the night of Saturday, 8 February 1862. He banged repeatedly on her door, which she opened reluctantly. She demanded that he leave, but he became even more irate when he saw that the soldier was in her house. He refused to leave, and neighbours, concerned for Eliza’s safety found a policeman, who managed to persuade Thorley to leave the scene.
The following day, Thorley saw Eliza together with Kate and the soldier, whom he challenged to a fight. However, the soldier ignored him, and, possibly in the hope that it would persuade Thorley to leave her alone, Eliza did not discourage the misconception that the soldier was her lover. She may have believed she had been successful as the next day the group encountered Thorley on the street but he ignored them.
Two days later, on the Tuesday, Eliza did not see Thorley, who was licking his emotional wounds. He drank heavily all day and late into the night. On his way home he became involved in a street fight with a stranger, and was warned by a police officer about his aggressive behaviour. He returned home, and it would emerge later that it was on this night that he sharpened his razor, having decided to murder Eliza.
At midnight on Wednesday, Thorley once again called at Eliza’s house, and on this occasion he was beating a drum. He shouted lewd and offensive comments at Eliza and Ann Webster, who lived with her.
Eliza Morrow. (Author’s collection)
He was heard by neighbours to shout that he and the rest of the town knew that the soldier was sharing a bed with the two of them. Eventually, Thorley went home, and once more he spent a considerable amount of time sharpening his razor, and he resolved to return to Agard Street the following night.
At 8 o’clock on the Thursday night, a young boy named Charles Wibberley was playing with a group of friends in Agard Street, outside Eliza’s house. He saw her talking to Thorley, and watched as he put his arms around her neck as though in an embrace. Seeing that the youngster was watching, Thorley turned to him and, in a menacing voice, told him to go away.
The boys ran off, but Charles returned unseen, and witnessed Thorley push Eliza against the wall, and as he did so, he heard her scream. Thorley stepped to one side, and Eliza, who was holding her throat, staggered a few feet forward, before falling to the ground. She was lying on her back, and Thorley knelt on
top of her briefly before standing, dropping the razor, and running away from the scene. Charles noticed blood on the wall, against which Eliza had been held, and also on the ground. The terrified youngster ran to find help.
The disturbance in the street was heard by Anne Webster and two of her neighbours, Emma Underwood and Uranea Boswell. Anne rushed out into the street as soon as she realised something was amiss. This was moments before Thorley fled, and she ran at him, but the other two women restrained her, as they feared for her safety.
Uranea rushed to Eliza’s aid, and at first thought she had simply been knocked down, as she noticed no evidence of wounds or any sign of a blow. Nevertheless, she soon realised the situation was much more serious, and as she tried to lift Eliza, she heard her say, ‘May the Lord have mercy on me’. As the two of them stood up, Uranea found that her own clothes and those of Eliza were dripping with blood. Charles Wibberley returned with a police officer who took possession of the razor. He called for assistance from his colleagues and sent for Dr Joseph German, who arrived a few minutes later.
He found the wounded woman lying on a sofa in her home; he could feel no pulse in her wrist, and it was feeble in the carotid artery, which had been exposed by a wound to her neck. He sent for brandy but she died before it arrived. He discovered that the victim had been subjected to a violent and deadly assault, which had resulted in appalling injuries.
There was a wound 4in long, but not very deep, extending from the front of the neck to about one inch behind and below the right ear. This wound joined another across her neck and face, and had exposed a portion of the carotid artery and jugular vein, although these were not damaged. The doctor believed that these wounds were not as serious as they might have been, as Eliza seems to have managed to fend off her attacker successfully, albeit for a brief time only.
Derbyshire Murders Page 5
