The Maul and the Pear Tree

by P. D. James

  Williams (as he has been called) shipped himself in the name of John Williamson, in August 1810, in the Roxburgh Castle, Captain Hutchinson, bound to the Brazils, as an ordinary seaman. The ship having been detained a long time at Rio Janeiro, proceeded afterwards for a cargo to Demarara, from whence she returned on the 3rd or 4th October last, at which time Williamson was discharged, and was paid upwards of £40, the balance of his wages. Captain Hutchinson supposes, as he possessed an address superior to his situation, wrote a good hand, and had gone to sea at an advanced age, that he must have been driven to that line of life by his former bad conduct. As sailors on a long voyage, under strict discipline, have not opportunities of doing much mischief, Captain Hutchinson cannot relate much of Williams’s misconduct; but mentions his attempting to impose himself upon a man at Rio Janeiro, as second mate of the Roxburgh Castle, and by that means obtaining a small sum of money. It was this circumstance that drew from Captain Hutchinson the expression attributed to him, ‘that if he lived to go on shore, he would certainly hang’.

  Williamson always endeavoured to pass as a native of Scotland; but Captain Hutchinson, who is himself from that country, easily discovered him to be an Irishman, and supposes him to be from the County of Down. When paid his wages by the owners, he represented himself to them as coming from Campbelltown, in Argyleshire. Besides the fraud committed on the second mate of the Roxburgh Castle, Williamson was engaged in a mutiny.

  Captain Hutchinson, in his late voyage, had altogether a very bad crew; and whilst proceeding from Rio Janeiro to Demarara, when off Surinam, they broke into open mutiny; upon which Captain Hutchinson anchored under the guns of the fort at Braam’s Point; and applied to Captain Kennedy, of His Majesty’s brig Forester, who by threats and persuasion, procured their return to their duty. Three of the principals in the business were sent into confinement in Surinam for 24 hours; one of these was William Ablass, the same person who was apprehended on suspicion of being concerned with Williams in the late murders. Williams on this occasion escaped punishment, having pleaded that he was led astray by his companions.

  From the evidence adduced before the magistrates, it appears that two men were represented as having been seen running from the house of Mr Williamson, when the murders were committed – one a man, six feet high, the other shorter. Williams (or Williamson) was five feet eight inches high; and Ablass is a stout man, about six feet. So far these two men answer the description of the fugitives. Further, Ablass states himself to be a native of Danzig, but speaks very good English. At his examination on Saturday last, before Mr Markland, at Shadwell office, he acknowledged he had been drinking in company with Williams, at three or four public-houses, on the night of the murders at Mr Williamson’s. He said that he left his comrade, Williams, at half-past eight, when he went home, and sat up till twelve, and then retired to bed. Being asked by the magistrate if he could prove this, he said he could by means of his landlady. She was sent for and attended with another woman. Her story was, that the prisoner came home from half-past nine to ten o’clock, and went to bed at twelve. It was remarked to the magistrates at the time, that the woman who attended with the landlady of Ablass had been in the habit of coming to the counting house of the owners of the Roxburgh Castle, to receive a monthly allowance of Ablass, and always represented herself, and signed the receipt, as his wife. Ablass denied, previous to this woman coming forward, that he had any wife, and appeared not to wish to claim any intimacy with the witnesses. Upon being asked how he had supported himself for so long without employment, he said he had pawned his clothes, and lived upon the bounty of some good friends. Under these circumstances, and upon the word of these women (for we are informed that they were not sworn) Ablass was discharged.

  John Harris [sic], the sail-maker, who was the first to communicate his suspicions of the guilt of Williams, served on board the Roxburgh Castle in that capacity. He had the best opportunity of studying the character of the man. Having been the only means of pointing out one of the authors of these barbarous murders, and bearing a character from the Captain the very reverse of that of Williams, he seems deserving of some reward.

  Harrison’s story of the missing French knife was particularly interesting to the Shadwell Bench, whose main efforts were still directed towards finding further proof of Williams’s guilt. It now occurred to them that a thorough search of the privy at the Pear Tree might reveal both the missing knife and Williamson’s watch, and they gave orders for the privy to be emptied and rigidly examined. This was the first time that any part of the Pear Tree was officially searched, despite the fact that it must have been apparent to the magistrates that the Vermilloes’ public house lay at the very heart of the mystery. Their neglect of this obvious and essential step is an indication of their ignorance of the first principles of criminal investigation. It may have taken a passage in the Morning Chronicle of 30 December to remind them of their duty:

  There was certainly something very particular, and indeed mysterious, in the manner in which Mrs Vermilloe gave her evidence, difficult to be accounted for. The ruffians concerned in the perpetration of these most dreadful murders appear to have resided near the spot, and perhaps search warrants might have produced some unexpected discovery in the neighbourhood. This hint, if attended to, may not yet perhaps be too late in regard to one or two public as well as private houses, frequently mentioned in the examinations.

  Accordingly on Saturday, 4 January, Holbrook and Hewitt were dispatched for this disagreeable duty. The Pear Tree had had its share of excitement but the news of this fresh activity brought the crowd round again. One can imagine the scene. Richter’s sullen face watching from an upstairs window. The enterprising John Harrison, anxious as always to demonstrate his zeal in the service of the law, pressing forward to volunteer his assistance. The crowd of regulars from the tap-room, kept at a respectful distance by police officers and watching in hostile silence while Mrs Vermilloe, truculent and apologetic by turns, resentful of this fresh intrusion, but mindful of the power of the magistrates and the hope of reward, led Holbrook and Hewitt to the privy. We are not told when it was last emptied although this evidence is, of course, vital when considering the significance of any articles found. The officers worked away, grateful, no doubt, that this duty had fallen to them on a cold morning in early January rather than in the heat of summer. They laid out their finds in the yard. The search was not unrewarding. They discovered a pair of old blue seaman’s trousers, part of a seamstress’s hussive and a pair of clasp scissors. The scissors were attached to the hussive, and the immediate reaction of the officers was that these articles must have been owned by either Mrs Williamson or Mrs Marr. The trousers, which had been pushed to the bottom of the privy with a birch broom were then washed. After the filth had been cleared away there appeared on them what The Times describes as ‘the most evident marks of blood in every direction’. Hoping to identify these articles with Williams, the magistrates ordered Mrs Vermilloe, John Harrison the sail-maker, and Margaret Jewell to attend on Monday, 6 January, and to give any information within their knowledge. Next day The Times reported the result:

  Mrs Vermilloe stated that she had often seen the trowsers of the description produced before the magistrates, but she could not pretend to say that she had ever before seen the identical pair in question. Sailors, in coming from the East Indies, used to wear such trowsers on board ship and they generally had them on when first landing; but she thought they were too shabby for Williams to have worn on shore. He was always very smart in his dress, but particularly so when in the house.

  John Harrison said that he had frequently seen the trowsers throwing about the lumber room in the Pear Tree public house where seamen, on landing, used to throw off their sea apparel and deposit their chests and other lumber. He could not, however, undertake to say that he had ever seen them worn by Williams. He might have worn them, but he had never seen them upon him.

  Margaret Jewell said she knew nothing of the scissors pro
duced. Her late mistress had always used a much larger kind; and had she ever had those in question she certainly must have observed them. With respect to the part of the hussive produced, she professed equal ignorance. Mrs Vermilloe also declared that she had never seen the scissors before.

  Holbrook and Hewitt deposed as to the finding of these articles; and both of them declared that the stains on the trowsers were those of blood. Hewitt produced a caulking chisel which he found in a drawer in the lumber room at the Pear Tree, with the letters J. P. pricked upon it in the same manner as those letters were marked upon the maul found in Mr Marr’s house. The other tools belonging to John Peterson were not marked in that way upon the iron, but only upon the wood. This new discovery still more strongly confirms the identity of that fatal instrument with the house wherein the suicide had lodged. The identification of the scissors remains doubtful until Catherine Stillwell, the grand-daughter of the late Mr Williamson, comes forward. She is ordered to attend this day before the magistrates.

  There is no further mention in the contemporary reports of Catherine Stillwell’s evidence. One assumes that she was unable to identify either the scissors or the hussive; had she done so this further link of the Pear Tree with one of the murders would surely have been mentioned. The mysterious finds in the privy had done nothing to advance the case against Williams. The seaman’s trousers, the hussive and the scissors were never identified. Why and by whom they were stuffed into the privy remain minor mysteries.

  Meanwhile Aaron Graham had continued his patient investigations. It was apparent both to him and to Ryder that the case was still unsolved, and on Tuesday, 7 January, the Home Secretary ordered the maul and the ripping chisels to be taken from Shadwell office and deposited at the Bow Street Police Office, each exhibit carefully marked. This may well have been the first time Graham had had the opportunity of examining them closely. Then, later that week, on January 10th, the Home Secretary sent to Shadwell for the full depositions taken from all the witnesses. It is a fair inference that he passed them on to Graham. The search for the second murderer had been placed by the Home Secretary firmly in his hands. Events from now on moved quickly, and the story is best told from the contemporary records:

  The Times, Monday, January 13th. Bow Street – Mrs Vermilloe, the landlady of the Pear Tree public house, and Turner, the man who lodged in the house of Williamson, who was barbarously murdered, have attended at the Office within these few days, with several other persons by order of Mr Graham, and have undergone private and strict investigations: which induced him to dispatch, Lavender, Vickery and Adkins on Friday evening to apprehend a man of the name of Hart, who it has been ascertained, worked in the house of Mr Marr on the day the murders were committed; and was seen in the company of Williams between ten and eleven o’clock at night. The murderers are supposed to have entered Mr Marr’s house about twelve o’clock.

  On Saturday, Hart underwent a private examination before Mr Graham, after which he was ordered into close confinement, and a man to take care and sit up with him. On Saturday the privy of the house where Hart lodged was emptied, in the presence of Vickery and Adkins, but nothing particular was found.

  The Times, Thursday, January 16th. A most important discovery has been made within these two days which removes every shadow of doubt respecting the guilt of the late suicide Williams. It was proved before the magistrates of Shadwell Office that three weeks before the murder of Mr Williamson and his family, Williams had been seen to have a long French knife with an ivory handle. That knife could never be found in Williams’s trunk or amongst any of the clothes he left behind him at the Pear Tree public house. The subsequent search to find it has been unsuccessful. On Tuesday Harrison, one of the lodgers at the Pear Tree, in searching among some old clothes, found a blue jacket which he immediately recognised as part of Williams’s apparel. He proceeded to examine it closely, and upon looking at the inside pocket he found it quite stiff with coagulated blood, as if a blood-stained hand had been thrust into it. He brought it down to Mrs Vermilloe, who instantly sent for Holbrook and another Shadwell Officer to make further search of the house. Every apartment then underwent the most rigid examination for almost an hour and a half, when the officers came at last to a small closet where there was a heap of dirty stockings and other clothes, which being removed, they observed a bit of wood protruding from a mouse-hole in the wall, which they immediately drew out, and at the same instant they discovered the handle of a clasp knife, apparently dyed with blood; which upon being brought forth, proved to be the identical French knife seen in Williams’s possession before the murders; the handle and blade of which were smeared all over with blood.

  This fact completes the strong circumstantial evidence already adduced against the suicide. The bloody jacket also tends to confirm his guilt. It is pretty clear that that part of his apparel must have been stained with the blood of the unfortunate Mrs Williamson, when the suicide was transferring her money, with his bloody hand, to his pocket.

  The Times, Friday, January 17th. Mr Graham pursued his private investigation in a room adjoining the Police Office. Mrs Vermilloe, landlady of the Pear Tree, attended and gave her evidence at considerable length respecting a man of the name of Ablass who was apprehended on Wednesday evening and brought to the Office. The man has been in custody before, when he denied knowing Williams; it has since been proved that he was his companion. A boy has proved that he saw three men looking in at Mr Marr’s shop a short time before it was shut up on the night of the murders. Ablass is kept in close confinement, with a man to look after him.

  The Times, Monday, January 27th. Mr Graham went to the unfortunate Mr Marr’s premises on Thursday and examined some witnesses on the spot. The prisoners Hart and Ablass are still kept in close confinement, not being able to account to about a quarter of an hour of their time on the night of the murder at Mr Williamson’s. It has been ascertained that a man can walk at a quick pace in less than five minutes from Mr Williamson’s to the Pear Tree public house. On Saturday a man and woman who lived next door to Mr Marr attended at the office and gave evidence respecting the horrible transaction. We understand it is their opinion that three or more persons were walking about at the time of the murders.

  Parliamentary Debates, Hansard, Friday, January 31st. Sir Francis Burdett: ‘What had they (the magistrates) been doing in the late examination which had taken place of persons who were supposed to have been concerned in the murder of Mr Marr’s family? … What was now the situation of that unfortunate person who was on confinement on suspicion of being concerned in the late murders, Ablass? What was he kept for? Why was he put in chains, immured in a dungeon and called upon every day to incriminate himself?’ The Home Secretary: ‘Ablass … had been asked some questions, which he declined to answer.’ The Prime Minister: ‘As to the severity which was asserted with respect to Ablass, there were circumstances of suspicion which led the magistrates to believe that he was on a given time at a given place; they did not require of him to criminate himself, though if he could have given a satisfactory account of himself during that period, the case would bear a very different complexion.’

  The Times, Monday, February 3rd. On Saturday evening Ablass underwent another examination before Mr Graham, and was discharged.

  So, early in February, the case was drawing to its close, the key questions still unanswered. Was Williams the sole murderer of the Marrs and Williamsons or had others been concerned? Was Ablass discharged for want of evidence, or on account of political pressure? What did the case against Hart amount to? When was he released? What private information had Graham amassed after nearly two months of patient effort? What, at the end, did he secretly make of it all? By good fortune his final correspondence in the case with the Home Secretary has been preserved in the Public Record Office:

  Sunday, February 2nd, 1812.

  From some evidence which I obtained yesterday morning I judged it proper to discharge Ablass out of Custody in the Evening. I am now sati
sfied that there were two persons concerned in Williamson’s murder and the Evidence on which I found my opinion induces me to believe that it was a shorter man than Ablass who accompanied Williams, if not in the actual perpetration of the deed, at least in assisting in or about the House at the time it was committed. Hart I have still in confinement, nor do I see how I can venture to release him yet. To speak plainly, I have the strongest suspicion that he was privy to, and in some way or other assisting, in the murder of Marr’s family, although it will certainly be difficult and perhaps impossible ever to make it out. But I have proved the most material points of his own statement to be absolutely false. He told me, and still persists in it, that he never saw Mr Marr after the Friday night (when he was known to be at work at Marr’s house) whereas I have the Evidence of a Lady who was at the shop on Saturday (the night of the Murder) after nine o’clock when he came in and wanted to be allowed to finish the job (late as it was) which she understood from his conversation he had been employed upon. She has seen him since and is sure it was him that came into the shop while she was there. And what is very remarkable, he had a bag, or basket, of tools upon his shoulder which he does not account for, but which in my mind accounts in some measure for Williams’s getting the maul so near to the place where he wanted it. To strengthen the suspicion, Hart is proved to have gone home that night exactly at the same time (one o’clock) that Williams did. On the following day (Sunday) he asserts that he was not out of Doors till late in the Evening and then only across the way to fetch some Liquor from the Pear Tree, instead of which two most respectable witnesses with whom he had worked a short time before, therefore could not be mistaken in his person, saw him about ten o’clock in the morning near to Marr’s house, when he saluted them by putting his hand to his Hat as he passed them. On the next day (Monday) he states in positive terms that he was at work all day at the House, and for the landlord, of the Crooked Billet, who produces his Book to prove, and swears also, that he recollects Hart did not do nor was paid for a stroke, of work done for him on that day – and whether Williams did the murder alone or in company with another, I have the most satisfactory Evidence that two if not three men made their Escape precisely at the time of the murder through the passage of the House in Pennington Street. In short, if ever a man was held on strong suspicion Hart is justly detained at the moment.