Back in London, Simpson carefully sifted, sieved and separated the soil and this revealed a number of incriminating items. First, there was the handle of a red plastic handbag. Such a bag, missing its handle, had been found in the yard, dumped behind a pile of bricks. Tests would show that the broken handle fitted that bag and Mrs Durand-Deacon had been seen with just such a bag on the day she vanished.
Other items found in the sludge and soil included a set of upper and lower dentures. These were examined by Lily Patricia Mayo, a dental surgeon of New Cavendish Street, London. Mrs Durand-Deacon had been a patient of hers for more than twenty years and Miss Mayo had made her at least five sets of dentures in that time. She was able to confirm that this was the last set she had made, in 1947.
Continuing his search, Dr Simpson found 28lbs of a very greasy substance which he later identified as some sort of animal fat, possibly human. There were also three gallstones and eighteen fragments of human bone. Not only was Dr Simpson able to piece together some of those bone fragments, to show that they were female, but he was also able to say that the owner was in late adult age as they showed signs of arthritis. Olive Durand-Deacon would have been sixty-nine on 28 February.
Other scientific minds were brought to bear on the case. Dr George Turfitt, the deputy director of the Metropolitan Police laboratory, examined the inside of a large green metal drum that had been found in the workshop. He found a considerable quantity of what proved to be animal fat and also traces of sulphuric acid.
Dr Henry Smith Holden, the director of the same laboratory, made an examination of the fur coat found at the dry cleaners in Reigate. The bottom of the coat and one of the sleeves had been patched and he found that portions of fabric found inside the red plastic handbag matched the material used precisely. He also found traces of human blood on the respirator case, the rubber apron and amongst the whitewash scrapings taken from the walls.
Charged with murder, Haigh made his first appearance at a court convened in Horsham Town Hall on 2 March. The details of the charge were given and, after a hearing of just five minutes, Haigh was remanded to 11 March. The police, meanwhile, were investigating other missing persons, whom Haigh said that he had killed. On 3 March, officers visited the basement at 79 Gloucester Road, South Kensington. Again samples of soil were taken and by 4 March, the story had broken in newspapers across the world. One newspaper, though, went too far.
No fewer than three editions of the Daily Mirror had been published on 4 March and each issue carried banner headlines about John George Haigh. At this time, Haigh had only been formally charged with one murder and, in all probability, evidence would only be heard on that one crime, as is common in British courts. The Daily Mirror, though, had published details of six possible murders and had given details of Haigh’s claims that he had drunk the blood of his victims, stating plainly that he was a vampire killer. This could be highly prejudicial to the case and as a result, on 8 March, Haigh’s legal representatives made an application to the King’s Bench Division Court for leave to apply for a writ of attachment against Mr Silvester Bolam, the editor of the newspaper. The case was eventually heard on 25 March, before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard and Justices Humphreys and Birkett. So seriously did they view the articles, that they fined the newspaper proprietors £10,000 and jailed Mr Bolam for three months. On the same day, Haigh, who had also been remanded on 11 March and 18 March, was further remanded to 1 April.
It was on 1 April that the evidence was finally detailed at Horsham. The initial hearing would last for two days, evidence being heard only on the one charge, that of the murder of Mrs Olive Durand-Deacon.
The prosecution began by stating that Haigh had lived at the Onslow Court Hotel since 1945. Over the last couple of years he had taken his meals at a table next to that of Mrs Durand-Deacon, so it was quite natural that they should get to know each other.
Evidence was given that on 7 February, Haigh’s personal bank account at the Gloucester Road branch of the Westminster Bank, had been overdrawn by £83 5s 10d. By 23 February, only £5 had been paid in, so it was clear that this account was not a source of funds and if Haigh needed money, he would need to resort to other methods of obtaining it.
On 17 February, Haigh had purchased the large 45-gallon drum he would need in order to dispose of his victim’s body. The following day, he and Mrs Durand-Deacon left for Crawley in his motor car at around 2.00pm. When they arrived they had first visited the George Hotel, where they both used the toilet. The couple were seen by the hotel’s book-keeper, Hannah Caplin. She knew Haigh as a regular customer and was able to identify his companion as Olive Durand-Deacon from a photograph shown to her by the police.
According to Haigh’s own detailed statement, they had then gone down to the workshop, where Mrs Durand-Deacon was shown some papers, supposedly relating to the manufacture of fingernails. As she turned towards the windows in order to see better, Haigh stood behind her, levelled his revolver at her head and put a single bullet into her brain. He then removed her fur coat and jewellery and put the body, along with the rest of her belongings, into the 45-gallon drum.
Haigh decided that he had worked hard enough for the time being and needed a break from his efforts. He went back to Crawley town centre where he entered The Ancient Priors, a restaurant, and enjoyed a cup of tea and some poached eggs. He then returned to Leopold Road where he filled the drum with acid. He then returned to the George Hotel, where he had dinner, before leaving for London at around 9.00pm.
On 19 February, Haigh returned to Crawley via Putney. On the way he stopped at a jeweller’s, Barrett and Sons Limited, in the High Street where he spoke to Herbert Louis Richmond to whom he offered an 18-carat diamond and ruby wrist watch. Haigh, who used the name F Miller, asked for £15 for the watch but finally settled for £10.
Arriving back at his workshop in Crawley, Haigh inspected the drum of acid and found that the reaction was not yet complete; a large piece of the dead woman’s buttocks were floating on top of the sludge and grease. Having topped up the acid, Haigh picked up the fur coat, which had been lying on a bench, and travelled on to Horsham, where he had the rest of the jewellery valued. On the way, he stopped off at Reigate and left the fur coat at the cleaners.
On Monday, 22 February, Haigh was back at Crawley where he saw that the chemical reaction was almost complete. There was a good deal of sludge floating on the top so Haigh emptied this off with a bucket and dumped it in the yard. He then topped up the tank with acid and returned to London.
On Tuesday, 23 February, Haigh sold the rest of the jewellery for £100. In fact, he only took £60 that day, as the jeweller did not have sufficient cash on the premises. He picked up the remaining £40 the next day. Meanwhile, he returned again to Crawley, where he emptied the tank into the yard. He also visited Edward Jones and paid him back some of the money he owed him.
Having heard all the evidence, the magistrates sent Haigh for trial at the next sessions at the Old Bailey, which were due to open on 26 April. Haigh’s case actually came up on the 27th, before Mr Justice Humphreys.
The defence asked for permission to defer the case to the next sessions, claiming that they were not yet ready to proceed. Mr Justice Humphreys made it clear that he believed the case should not even have been sent to London in the first place. Whilst it was true that Haigh had admitted committing three murders in Kensington, the evidence of the one case that would be heard, was on a murder in Sussex and should, therefore, be tried by a Sussex jury. The judge sent the case back to Sussex, to be heard at the next Lewes sessions. These were due to open on 11 July.
Haigh’s trial actually opened at Lewes on Monday, 18 July, and lasted for two days. Although Mr Justice Humphreys had returned the case from London, it was that same gentleman who presided over the Sussex assizes and so it was he who heard the evidence against Haigh. For the prosecution, Sir Hartley Shawcross led, assisted by Mr Gerald Hayward and Mr Eric Neve. Haigh’s defence lay in the hands of Sir David Maxwel
l Fyfe, who was assisted by Mr GRF Morris and Mr David Neve, the son of Eric.
Although evidence on only one crime would be heard, Haigh had actually confessed to nine murders. In addition to William Donald McSwann, William McSwann, Amy McSwann, Archibald Henderson, Rose Henderson and Olive Durand-Deacon, Haigh also claimed that he had killed a woman he had met in Hammersmith, a young man he had met the same year, and a woman named Mary who he had met at Eastbourne. It must be remembered, though, that Haigh was a master liar and, relying on a defence of insanity, was claiming as many victims as he could.
Once Haigh’s detailed confession had been read out in court, and the evidence on the murder of Mrs Durand-Deacon heard, the time came for the defence to put forward their case. The only possible defence, as suggested by Haigh himself, when he mentioned Broadmoor, was one of insanity. The defence called Dr Henry Yellowlees, a psychiatrist, who had examined Haigh on three occasions in Brixton prison.
Dr Yellowlees began by detailing Haigh’s strict religious upbringing and his failed marriage but then moved on to Haigh’s story of his dreams and lust for blood.
Haigh claimed that ever since he had been a young child, he had been fascinated by blood. His mother was in the habit of chastising him, when he misbehaved, by rapping him across the back of the hand with a hairbrush. This often caused his hand to bleed and he had sucked the blood and found the taste agreeable. From that time on he had taken to hurting himself deliberately in order to taste the blood. Haigh had also told Dr Yellowlees of two recurring dreams that he had had since childhood.
The first of these was a dream of Christ on the cross, blood pouring from his wounds. The second, which Haigh called the ‘tree dream’, was more sinister. In this, a forest of crucifixes slowly turned into trees from which rain appeared to be dripping. A dark figure collected this ‘rain’ in a chalice and it soon became clear that the rain was actually blood. The dream would end when the figure offered the chalice up to Haigh with an invitation for him to drink.
For some years, these dreams and the urges they produced in Haigh were suppressed by him, until one day in 1944, when he was involved in a road accident near Three Bridges in Sussex. Haigh’s head was cut in the accident and the blood ran down into his mouth. This had rekindled his desires and led to him committing murder in order to drink the blood of his victims. His confession detailed how he made an incision, usually in the neck, of each of his victims, drew a glassful of blood, which he then drank down with relish.
Dr Yellowlees stated under oath that in his opinion, Haigh was a lunatic and, although he may have lied about drinking the blood, he almost certainly carried out this ritual and may well have tasted some blood from each victim.
The jury retired on the second day and took just seventeen minutes to decide that Haigh was perfectly sane, and therefore guilty of wilful murder. It was announced, by his defence team, that there would be no appeal and they would instead rely on the medical evidence to obtain a reprieve for him.
The Home Secretary, Mr Chuter Ede, immediately set up a panel of medical experts to examine all the evidence in great detail. Eventually they presented their own conclusions: they agreed with the jury that Haigh was sane and guilty as charged.
On Wednesday, 10 August 1949, a crowd of some 500 people gathered in the bright sunshine outside Wandsworth prison. At 8.30am a telegram was delivered to the prison. Half an hour later, at 9.00am, John George Haigh was hanged by Albert Pierrepoint, assisted by Harry Kirk, who gave him a drop of seven feet four inches. Pierrepoint used a special calf-leather wrist strap to pinion Haigh’s hands behind his back, a strap he only ever used in cases where he had a special interest.
Chapter 34
John O’Connor
1951
Eighty-two-year-old Eugenie le Maire had lived at 15 Perham Road, West Kensington for many years. Occasionally she would rent out rooms to lodgers but, in the autumn of 1951, there was just one man living with her: twenty-nine-year-old John O’Connor. Eugenie treated her lodger well, and looked after him almost like her own son.
On the evening of Saturday, 11 August, John O’Connor walked into his local police station and admitted he had killed his landlady. Taken in for interview, he then made a detailed written statement outlining what he had done. O’Connor then handed over his front door key and, after officers had visited the house in Perham Road, was charged with murder.
O’Connor’s trial took place at the Old Bailey on 2 October 1951, before Mr Justice Barry. The case for the Crown was outlined by Mr Christmas Humphreys, and O’Connor was defended by Mr W Hemming.
In fact, O’Connor actually faced two trials on that day. The first was to decide on his ability to understand the charge and enter a plea. Once that jury had decided that O’Connor knew what he was doing and could fully understand the proceedings, a second jury was sworn, to hear the evidence on the charge of murder.
In this rather unusual case, there were no witnesses to what had taken place inside 15 Perham Road. The prosecution began, therefore, by reading out O’Connor’s statement to the police.
O’Connor stated that on the night of 10 August, he had visited several public houses and freely admitted that he was quite drunk by the time he took a taxi back home. He arrived quite late, but Eugenie had still not gone to bed, and kindly said that she would make him a cup of tea. O’Connor then followed her into the kitchen and then, whilst she was pottering about with the kettle, he suddenly seized her by the throat and tried to strangle her. She struggled for a while and then slipped into unconsciousness.
O’Connor’s statement conveniently missed out the next part of what had happened to Eugenie le Marie. He claimed that he had immediately gone upstairs. Later medical evidence would show that actually, at this point, O’Connor raped his landlady, before going up to his bedroom.
Continuing his narrative, O’Connor said that he had been in his bedroom for a short time, thinking about what he had done. Rather than feeling any remorse, he then went back downstairs, to find that Eugenie was still unconscious on the floor. After looking at her helpless form for a few moments, he then calmly walked across the room, picked up a large bread knife and stabbed Eugenie repeatedly in the heart and lungs. He then washed, before walking to the police station and giving himself up.
At the beginning of the trial, the judge had explained that there were only three possible verdicts in this case. The first was guilty of murder, the second was not guilty, and the third was guilty but insane. Given the detailed written confession to the crime, O’Connor’s barrister had expressly stated that the only possible defence was one of insanity. O’Connor, however, would have none of it. He expressly forbade Mr Hemming to bring forward any evidence as to his state of mind.
As a result of this, Mr Hemming could do very little to try to save his client. O’Connor even refused to step into the witness box to try to explain his actions. This meant that not only could the defence not rely on a plea of insanity, but they could also call no witnesses and could offer no evidence whatsoever, as to why O’Connor may have committed this terrible crime.
The jury, having heard the police and medical evidence and O’Connor’s detailed confession, took only ten minutes to return their verdict. O’Connor was guilty of murder. There could, of course, be only one outcome, and O’Connor was duly sentenced to death.
Even now, O’Connor did nothing to try to save his own life. He did not enter an appeal and refused to have his solicitor plead for the sentence to be commuted to one of life imprisonment. As a result of that, on Wednesday, 24 October, just twenty-two days after he had been sentenced, John O’Connor was hanged at Pentonville, by Albert Pierrepoint and Harry Allen, for what was a totally motiveless and senseless crime.
Chapter 35
Dennis George Muldowney
1952
Krystyna Skarbek was a true heroine. Born in Poland on 1 May 1908, she was the daughter of a Count and grew up to marry Jerzy Gizycki, on 2 November 1938. Soon after this, Jerzy was sent to
Ethiopia as a Consul and the couple were there, in Addis Ababa, when Hitler invaded Poland, on 1 September 1939.
Krystyna and her husband made their way to England where, soon afterwards, their marriage failed. Eager to fight in some way against the German invaders of her home country, Krystyna travelled to Hungary, where she met an old acquaintance, Andrzej Kowerski. Free from her husband, Krystyna fell in love with Andezej, who was just as determined as she was to fight against the Germans. In due course, they made contact with a group calling themselves the Musketeers, who decided that the couple could work for them. In all, they made three undercover visits to Warsaw, in order to collect valuable information for the Resistance, which they in turn sent on to London.
On the return to Hungary from their third visit to Poland, Krystyna and her partner were arrested by the Hungarian Secret Police, but they managed to escape. As experienced operatives, they then contacted the British Ambassador, Sir Owen O’Malley, who arranged, amongst other things, false British passports for them. From this time onwards, Krystyna would use her new anglicised name, Christine Granville.
Christine continued to work as an operative and sent back information from Turkey, Egypt and Palestine. It has been said that the information which she sent back to London enabled Winston Churchill to predict that Hitler was about to invade Russia.
From Egypt, Christine joined the Special Operations Executive. Transferred to Algiers she travelled by plane to France, where she landed, by parachute, on 6 July 1944. Soon afterwards, on 13 August, her commanding officer was arrested by the Gestapo, along with a major and a French officer. Held in a prison in Digne, they would, almost certainly have been executed, but Christine walked into the prison, claimed to be married to one of the prisoners and to be a niece of Field Marshal Montgomery. She then calmly informed the prison guards that she would make sure that they were all shot as war criminals if they harmed any of the prisoners.
Foul Deeds in Kensington and Chelsea Page 16
