Derbyshire Murders

by Martin Baggoley

  Dr Wheatcroft visited Emily on 24 August when she appeared to be in good health. Talbot visited her on the following day and again on 1 and 2 September. Two days later, assisted by Mrs Coxon, Emily gave birth to a baby who was stillborn. She told Dr Wheatcroft that it was a result of her falling downstairs when Mrs Coxon was out of the house two days earlier. However, he did not believe her account, for the baby’s wasted state led the doctor to determine that it had been dead in the womb for at least two weeks.

  On the following day, the doctor witnessed a rapid deterioration in his patient’s condition, and her temperature rose to 106 degrees Fahrenheit. There was no improvement the following day and her temperature remained dangerously high. He realised that there was now no chance of her recovering, and told her the tragic news. It was then that she decided to inform the doctor of what had occurred, and told him that Talbot had used two needles to perform an abortion. The police were informed and arrangements made for her deathbed statement to be taken.

  When Talbot was later advised that a post-mortem would be taking place, she replied that she felt easier in her own mind as this would demonstrate that nothing unlawful had occurred. This, however, seemed to be bravado on her part. The examination was performed by Dr Wheatcroft and Dr Spettigue. They found indications of blood poisoning and two perforations, which they insisted was conclusive evidence of instruments such as needles being used, which supported Emily’s version of events. The cause of death was acute septic poisoning, arising from an illegal operation as described by the deceased.

  The inquest into Emily’s death opened on Thursday, 16 September before Mr A. Taylor, Deputy Coroner for Osmaston. This however, was only a brief hearing and was restricted to evidence of identification of the deceased so that a burial certificate could be issued. The hearing was adjourned until the following Wednesday at the Sherwood Foresters Hotel, Old Normanton. It was at this hearing that the coroner’s jury, having heard all of the evidence, found that the dead woman had been the victim of wilful murder by Talbot, and furthermore it was considered there had been no accessories to the crime.

  Talbot also appeared before a special sitting of the County Bench at the County Hall, Derby, at which evidence similar to that given at the inquest was heard. The magistrates also committed her to the next assizes for trial.

  Her trial took place in early December, with the prosecution being led by J.H. Etherington-Smith, who was assisted by Mr Garratt. The accused was defended by W.B. Hexall.

  Mr Etherington-Smith opened the prosecution case by describing the crime as a murder in the second degree. It was acknowledged that the defendant had not intended to kill Emily, but the crucial element of malice aforethought, necessary in all cases of wilful murder, was understood to be present in law in such cases. He next called the witnesses for the prosecution, all of whom had testified at the inquest and before the magistrates. The evidence that each gave at the trial was similar to that which had been given at those previous hearings.

  In his concluding address to the jury, Mr Etherington-Smith emphasised the importance of Emily’s deathbed statement. He accepted fully that she had colluded in arranging the abortion, but this did not remove the responsibility of the accused for what occurred.

  In Talbot’s defence, Mr Hexall insisted that his client had simply made an internal examination of the deceased. However, he insisted that the internal injuries that had undoubtedly caused Emily’s death were not the result of an attempt to perform an abortion, but by Talbot’s failure to perform a proper and safe examination. He urged the jury to return a verdict of manslaughter, which he claimed was the most appropriate outcome in this sad case.

  In his summing up, the judge very fairly acknowledged that an abortion that went horribly wrong and ended in the death of the pregnant woman, was not the usual type of murder that juries had to decide on. Paradoxically, the victim of such crimes had often solicited the illegal operation. Nevertheless, he continued by making it clear that if an individual commits a felonious act which could reasonably be foreseen to endanger the life of another, and death results, that individual is guilty of murder.

  He told the jury that they had to decide whether they believed that the accused woman had performed the illegal operation knowing that it might possibly end Emily’s life. He drew their attention to the accused’s suggestion to the deceased’s mother that it had been regrettable that Emily had not approached her earlier, as she would have been able to help her without risk. The jury might reasonably conclude that this demonstrated an awareness that Emily’s life would be at risk if an abortion was attempted.

  If they did believe this was the case, the fact that Talbot had not intended to harm her was not an issue in determining guilt or innocence. As for the defence claim that their client had not performed an operation as such, but had simply carried out an internal examination, the judge pointed to the post-mortem findings and suggested that the members of the jury might believe this cast serious doubt on that explanation.

  The jury retired at 6.35 p.m. and returned twelve minutes later having reached their verdict. The foreman stated, ‘We find the prisoner guilty of wilful murder, but with a strong recommendation for mercy, seeing that she was sent for and did not seek the opportunity herself.’

  The judge replied, ‘I shall have pleasure in forwarding your recommendation to the Home Secretary, and I have no doubt it will receive at his hands the most careful consideration.’ He passed the mandatory sentence of death, and the prisoner, who appeared stunned by the verdict, had to be helped by the prison warders down the steps into the cells below.

  The jury’s recommendation for mercy, which obviously had the support of the judge, did not necessarily mean that a reprieve was inevitable. Abortionists had been hanged occasionally when their operations had gone wrong and ended in the death of a pregnant woman. Accordingly, Talbot’s solicitor, Mr Holbrook wasted no time in raising a petition in the hope of gaining his client a reprieve.

  On 7 December, Sir George Sitwell, the High Sheriff of Derbyshire, received a letter from the Home Office confirming that Talbot had been reprieved, and when this news was conveyed to her in the condemned cell at Derby Gaol, she collapsed.

  It was to be another two weeks before she was advised of the sentence she would have to serve, when, on 23 December, Mr Holbrook received notification from the Home Office that she was to be sentenced to twelve years’ penal servitude. However, if during her sentence she was industrious and well behaved, she would become eligible for release on licence after eight years.

  12

  THE BRUTE

  Bugsworth, 1898

  The second murder trial at the winter assizes of 1898 was that of seventy-one-year-old John Cotton. He had spent his working life as a boatman, and had a reputation for extremely violent behaviour against women. His long-suffering wife, Hannah, who was thirty-five years his junior, and who lived with him in the cramped conditions of their barge, was frequently the victim of his brutal outbursts. He would become intensely jealous if Hannah so much as looked at another man, and he regularly accused her of having affairs, even though she was known to be a faithful and dutiful wife.

  On Wednesday, 26 October 1898, their barge was moored in the Upper Peak Forest Canal’s terminus at Bugsworth, near Whaley Bridge, and that afternoon the couple decided to go for a drink at the Rose and Crown. The Cottons were well known to the landlord, Thomas Hayes and his wife, as they visited the pub whenever they moored in the basin.

  As the afternoon wore on, Cotton began arguing with his wife and became extremely threatening. The landlord attempted to placate him, and eventually persuaded Cotton to take Hannah home. Worried what Cotton might do to her, Thomas walked with the couple to where their boat was moored, by which time Cotton appeared to have calmed down. When Thomas left them Cotton appeared to be on good terms with his wife. Little could he know that Hannah would soon become the victim of a murderous attack by her husband.

  As soon as they were back on the
barge, Cotton started to abuse his wife. Gradually his anger increased to such an extent that he picked up a poker, 3ft in length and 1in thick, with which he began to beat her. This was witnessed through an open cabin door by three young girls who were on their way home from school.

  The Upper Peak Forest Canal, on which Cotton made his living. (Author’s collection)

  Bugswort Basin. (Author’s collection)

  Elizabeth Copeland, Selina Hall and Hilda Hayes were on the opposite canal bank when they heard Hannah’s screams coming from the boat. The girls looked on in horror as Cotton savagely beat his unfortunate victim repeatedly about the head with the poker. After a number of blows Hannah fell silent.

  The crime was also witnessed by local farmer, James Carrington, whose evidence would later suggest that this was not simply a drunken and unpremeditated assault on Hannah. Rather it seemed to him to have been a deliberate and calculated attack, a view which was given additional support by the landlord of the Rose and Crown, who testified that in his opinion, Cotton had not been drunk when he left the pub earlier that day.

  James Carrington also heard Cotton shouting at Hannah as he continued to beat her. As she lay helpless on the cabin floor, pleading for mercy, he could hear her attacker mocking her, and screaming that if she did not shut up he would throw her into the canal. He also shouted that he was tired of her and wanted rid of her so that he could find a new wife.

  Cotton left the boat, and after he did so, Mr Carrington and the three girls took the opportunity of calling for help. Hannah was carried to the nearby Navigation Inn, where she was treated by Dr Allen. Cotton meanwhile had returned to the Rose and Crown, where for the next few hours he drank heavily. By this time news of his vicious attack on Hannah had spread and the landlady said to him, ‘You’ve done it this time Cotton’. His response was to say to her, ‘If you don’t hold your tongue, I’ll serve you the same as I’ve served her’. At this stage neither of them was aware of the true extent of Hannah’s injuries, but later that night he was arrested by Constable Whitely, who had recovered the weapon used in the assault, for the attempted murder of his wife.

  However, Hannah died the following morning without having regained consciousness, and the charge was therefore amended to that of wilful murder. The brutal nature of the assault was revealed when the post-mortem was performed by Dr Allen of Whaley Bridge and Dr Anderson of Chapel-en-le-Frith. The victim’s head was a mass of severe cuts and large bruises. One of the blows had fractured the base of her skull, and this alone was described as having been sufficient to have caused her death.

  The inquest was held on the following Saturday morning before local coroner Mr G. Davis. The coroner’s jury had little difficulty in finding that Hannah had been the victim of wilful murder and that her husband was responsible. On the following Thursday Cotton appeared before the Magistrates’ Court at Chapel-en-le-Frith Town Hall. Once again this proved to be little more than a formality, and despite his attempt to interrupt the evidence being given by Elizabeth Copeland by calling her a liar, Cotton was committed to stand trial at the next assizes.

  The Navigation Inn. (Author’s collection)

  As Cotton, who had been remanded to Derby Gaol, awaited his trial, details of his background began to emerge. He had made relatively few previous court appearances, and these had been mainly for drunkenness and minor offences. Surprisingly, there had been no convictions for violence. This was, however, probably due to the fact that hitherto his victims had been too frightened to report him to the police.

  In the past he had been heard to boast that he had killed his two previous wives, which was a claim he appeared to take a good deal of perverse pride in. These deaths had not been due to one attack, but rather to his continuing ill treatment of them over lengthy periods of time. Someone who had known him for many years told a local reporter of one occasion when he threw his wife out into the street after beating her very badly, and on another occasion he injured the same woman so badly that when suckling her baby it had to be held to her breast by a neighbour.

  At his trial, Cotton’s defence barrister, Mr Lawrence, argued that the jury should convict his client of manslaughter, as there had been no intent to kill his wife. However, this argument was rejected and at the trial’s conclusion the jury took just fifteen minutes to return a verdict of guilty of murder. Ominously for Cotton, there was no recommendation for mercy.

  The trial judge, Justice J.C. Mathew, expressed his full agreement with the jury’s verdict. He exhorted Cotton to make the most of the short time he had left to prepare himself for his death, and to repent, after which he sentenced him to death.

  The brutality of the crime, the lack of a recommendation for mercy, together with the public’s obvious indifference to the callous murderer’s fate, meant that there would be no petition to obtain a reprieve. It was thought that the Home Secretary might intervene to prevent his execution due to Cotton’s advanced age. However, there was to be no such intervention, and the execution was fixed for 21 December.

  In the condemned cell, Cotton was visited daily by the prison chaplain, the Revd J. Hart-Johnson, who reported that the prisoner had demonstrated what he considered to be genuine repentance. On the eve of his execution Cotton was visited by his two sons and one of his daughters for the final time. The visit was brief but intensely emotional, and he told them that he believed he had been granted a heavenly pardon. He lay on his bed at 9 p.m., but was unable to sleep and spent a restless night.

  The hangman James Billington and his son, William, had arrived at the prison during the afternoon prior to the execution, and made all the necessary preparations for the following morning. The scaffold was relatively new and had been used on just one previous occasion in 1896. A huge crossbeam had been built into the walls of the execution chamber, 8ft from the ground, to which the Billingtons fixed the rope. The lever was tested and found to be in good working order.

  Cotton was out of bed and dressed by 5.30 a.m. and enjoyed a traditional last breakfast of bread and butter with a cup of tea. At 7 a.m. the prison chaplain entered the cell to offer some comfort to the condemned man. The governor allowed five journalists to be present at the execution, and they were met at the gate by the gaol’s schoolmaster, Mr W. Fenwick who escorted them the forty yards to the place of execution. En route, the journalists had to pass a newly dug grave immediately under the main wall, which within a few hours would be Cotton’s final resting place.

  Shortly before eight o’clock the county sheriff and the other officials arrived at the door of the condemned cell. Cotton was advised that the time for his execution had arrived, and the procession made its way to the scaffold. At its head was Chief Warder Lawrence, who carried a black wand. Cotton followed immediately behind him, and walking alongside him were Warders Evans and Langdon. Warders Cox and Sills followed, and at the rear of the procession were the governor, Captain C.E. Farquarson, the acting Under Sheriff Mr H. Scott-Currey, and finally the prison surgeon, Dr C.A. Greaves.

  The chaplain joined them on the scaffold, and he was reading from the English Burial Service as Cotton, whose hair was noticeably whiter than at his trial, climbed the steps. He stood on the trapdoor calmly as Billington’s son fastened the ankle strap, and Billington senior placed the noose around his neck and made the necessary adjustments. Finally a white cap was placed over his head, and the bolt was drawn. As Cotton plunged through the trap the chaplain was saying, ‘Oh Lord remember not the offences of Thy servant’, to which the others in the room responded, ‘Amen’.

  The execution took place on the shortest day of the year, and although it was a cold and dark morning, a large crowd had gathered outside of the prison walls. There was no sympathy for Cotton, and his execution seems to have been welcomed by the assembled crowd. Two policemen were present, but the crowd was well behaved and posed no problems. As the prison clock struck eight o’clock all eyes turned towards the flagstaff to watch the black flag raised to confirm the execution had taken place.
The crowd then dispersed quietly.

  Two hours later the inquest was held before the coroner, Mr W. Harvey-Whiston, and the jury found that he had been hanged lawfully. Within a few minutes, the body of this violent and unlamented man was placed in the freshly dug grave under the prison wall.

  13

  A MATRICIDE

  Chesterfield, 1905

  Throughout the twentieth century just seven men were executed in England for the particularly heinous crime of murdering their mothers, and two of these matricides occurred in Derbyshire. The first took place in Chesterfield in the early years of the century.

  It was a few minutes before ten o’clock on the morning of Sunday, 6 August 1905 when Henry Dye, who was delivering newspapers, approached the door of 3 Spa Street, Chesterfield. He found the door open and peering into the house, he was horrified to see the body of fifty-one-year-old Mary Fallon lying on the floor.

  Henry found Constable Sykes, who returned to the house with the distressed witness. Once at the scene, the officer found the body to be cold and stiff, suggesting she had been dead for several hours. He also noticed that the room in which she lay showed signs of a desperate struggle. He knew that the victim had been disabled and could only walk with the aid of a crutch. This, together with much of the furniture in the room, was broken and there was a great deal of smashed crockery and glassware. The crutch and a chair leg were lying close to the body, and were covered with blood.