|
On Monday last Wm. Weekley Ball, the person suspected of being the murderer of Lydia Atley, at Ringstead, in July 1850, was brought up for examination at the police office, Thrapston. Great excitement was manifested on the occasion, and long before the hour fixed for the hearing the doors were besieged by persons from Ringstead, Denford, and the neighbouring places. The sitting magistrates were General Arbuthnot in the chair, the Hon. Fitzpatrick H. Vernon, the Rev. W. Duthy, and the Hon. and Rev. Courtney Vernon. Mr. H.P. Markham, of Northampton, conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Gaches, of Peterborough, attended for the prisoner. Before the evidence opened Mr. Gaches applied to the bench that the money £22 5s 9d found on the prisoner when he was apprehended, might be restored to him. Mr. Markham made no objection and Mr. Archibald undertook that it should be refunded. The prisoner, who appeared to be between forty and fifty years of age, was dressed very respectably in black and had the appearance of a well to do tradesman. He has a rather high bald forehead, with a single lock of long dark hair drawn across it, a well shaped nose, thin lips, and eyes with many wrinkles about them. The face is peculiar from a complete lack of eyebrows. He manifested no emotion except on the production of a fragment of the jaw of the skeleton, when his face was momentarily flushed. He paid great attention to the evidence, but left his case wholly in the hands of his solicitor, never offering a suggestion throughout the day. The following was the evidence:-
Elizabeth Groom:- I live at Ringstead. In July 1850, I was living just opposite Mr. Ball’s yard. My sister Lydia Atley, was living at Ringstead at that time. I have been in Lydia Atley’s house when the prisoner has come there. When the prisoner came in Lydia told me to go out and I then left them together. My sister told me to go in his presence. He was not a yard off. He has given me meat for her. I recollect this morning I met the prisoner in the Back Lane. I spoke to him. I asked him whether he had seen my sister. He said, No. I never stopped in the room with the prisoner and Lydia Atley. I never heard their conversations -by Mr. Gaches : My sister lived with her brother, John Atley, that is in one house. Sarah Anne Phillips, now Manning, lived there. I have never stated this before the magistrates. In 1850 I went to Mr. Wilkins, and he asked me whether I had heard my husband say anything, and I said, No. I didn’t know as my brother went. The magistrates did not ask me no questions. I wasn’t there three minutes. Mr. Wilkins sent for us to know whether I had ever heard my husband say anything, what he had heard. I did say that Ball had been to my sister’s when I was there, and that I had been told to go out.
Sarah Anne Manning: I am the wife of John Manning, of Ringstead. I was living at Ringstead in 1850. Lydia Atley’s mother died in May 1850. Upon the death of the mother I went to sleep along with Lydia Atley. I slept with her every night up to the night of the 22nd July, when she was lost. She was then likely to be confined. On the 22nd July she went to the shop for some soap, and soda and rice. We were going to have a rice pudding next day. We were going to wash. I went down the street with her for the tray. It was as near as I can guess about nine when we got back. She said she was got to go down street in a little time and she went out. I have never seen her since. – By Mr. Gaches: Before I went to sleep there her mother and brother lived there. Lydia Atley used to go about with herrings and oranges. I don’t think she ever went far about. I don’t know her age. By Mr. Markham : I don’t know the age of her brother.
Sarah Dix: I am sister to Lydia Atley. In 1850 I was living in London End under Mr. Wilkins. I recollect the day before she was missed. I had been ill in my confinement and she was waiting on me. I had asked her to take my husband’s dinner to Mr. Freeman’s field; it was Mr. Freeman’s field then and is Mr. Eady’s now. Before she went she said she felt so ill she didn’t think she could get there. I said, my wench, if you do not think you can I’ll get a little girl to go. She sat down a little while, and then she said, I think I feel a little better. I’ll try and go myself. She did so. She thought she was near her confinement. She had had a child before. When she returned she said she felt so ill that – Mr. Gaches objected to the course the examination was taking and appealed to the court to check it. What Lydia Atley said to her sister was not evidence. There was a feeling abroad in reference to this occurrence amounting to the romantic and every word would be caught up and distorted to the prejudice of the accused. Mr. Markham said he felt it his duty to press the question. The woman must have got away somehow; he had a right to show the extent of her inability to get away unaided.- the bench decided that Mr. Markham should continue his examination – The witness continued accordingly. After she came back from the field she said she felt so ill she didn’t think she should be able to do her washing next day. She said she was so near her confinement she had not an hour to count on. She had a very bad leg, so that she couldn’t get about far. – By Mr. Gaches: She was in a very depressed state all day. I last saw her at a quarter past nine o’clock at night on Monday. It was on the Monday night as she was missed on the Tuesday. I did know a person called James Wilkinson, a baker. I have said that Lydia Atley had had a child. I don’t know anything about her keeping company with Wilkinson before the birth of this child.
Joseph Groom: I am a labourer, at Ringstead. In July 1850 I was living at Ringstead. I recollect the night before Lydia Atley was missing quite well. I was in the street smoking my pipe. I heard two voices – of a man and a woman. Lydia Atley had just before left me at my door. I knew Lydia Atley’s voice quite well. I can’t say as I knew Ball’s so well. I know Ball’s orchard. I heard her say that she wasn’t going in the house with him that night. I heard her very soon afterwards say “Get off me, for I believe you mean killing me tonight Weekley Ball.” I heard her say “The Lord have Mercy upon me if I’m to die in the state I’m in.” I didn’t hear anything more that I could make out. I heard a noise that seemed to be getting away from me and weaker. It was a grumbling sort of noise rather than screaming. I have never seen Lydia Atley since. It was about a quarter to ten at night when I went out of my house into the street. – Cross examined by Mr. Gaches: I have been in Ringstead 28 years. I had lived at Denford, before that. I worked at Mr. Richard Freeman’s at Ringstead. John Hill, Thomas Ball, Thomas Cottingham were also working with me then. I should say it was getting on for nine o’clock when we left off work that evening. We were carting tares. I am quite sure we were not working after ten that night. When I left work, I went up to the London End to fetch a pole I had bought. I don’t recollect anyone being with me. I separated from my fellow-workmen at the farmyard gate. I had then known Lydia Atley 16 or 18 years. I was then a widower with a family and a housekeeper. I have married her since. She had some children by me before I married her. I knew Lydia Atley very well indeed. She used to come to my house. I did not walk with her at night – never in my life. She used to come to my house at different times, talking to me and my housekeeper, who is now my wife. I was talking with Lydia Atley at my door, I should think about twenty minutes before ten that night. She had been in my house before that night. When she left, I went with her home. She told me she was going to Weekley Ball for some money, and, if she did not have some, there would be a row that night. – Mr. Gaches objected to the witness’s statement – it did not arise out of his cross examination. –Mr. Markham contended that it did and that it was evidence. _ The Court decided it was evidence. – Cross examination continued: Upon my oath she did not apply to me for money that night. Her voice was a remarkable voice. I don’t know it was remarkably pleasing to me. Ball lived in the same village with me – a tradesman. I may have talked with him. He would not let anyone hear his voice so plain as she would. I was not more intimate with her than I ought to be. I followed her about ten yards when she left my house – not farther. Then I leaned my back against the wall, and smoked my pipe. I remained in that position from five to ten minutes and then I went back into the house. I went out again in about a quarter of an hour. I did not go three yards away and remained a very few minutes and then I came back and went to bed. I was only up in the London Road that night to fetch the pole. That was about a few minutes before nine. Lydia Atley did not assist me in carrying the pole. I did not see her in the London Road at all. I don’t recollect seeing anyone in particular. When I got home Lydia Atley was in the house. – By Mr. Markham: I am the husband of Elizabeth Groom, own sister to Lydia Atley. There never was any ground for the imputation that I had been improperly familiar with Lydia Atley. – Mr. Duthy: When you heard that noise getting fainter and fainter did you try to ascertain what it was? No – I thought it was a kind of row. I did not think it was alarming so as to require further notice.
John Hill: I am a labourer, at Woodford. I recollect the night that Lydia Atley was missed. I was then living at Ringstead. About a quarter to ten that night I went up to Mr. Beeby’s orchard. There was a tree in the orchard. The next field to where the tree was belongs to the Black Horse, Mrs. Hill’s. There is a road from the Black Horse into Ringstead Back Lane. While I was there I heard someone coming up the Slip – a very narrow close. It was Weekley Ball. The way he was going was contrary to his own house, because it leads to Denford. After he went through the gate there was a stake to prevent it opening and he turned round and faced me. I am sure it was Weekley Ball. I have known him for thirty years. It was a still and beautiful night as ever was seen, the moon coming out from behind mottled clouds. I got over the hedge into the Slip, and then over the wall into Cherry Orchard. When I got there a few yards I say Lydia Atley and Weekley Ball in the lane together, leading into the lane and the back of Weekley Ball’s orchard. I heard Lydia Atley repeat “I won’t.” After they got a little further down I heard her repeat again, “I won’t; it’s yours and nobody’s else.” Then I went on till I got near to the edge of the stile and skulked down, I was so near to them. They had not got to the orchard then. They went down to the turn that leads into Ball’s orchard, and I heard her say there “I won’t go in, Weekley, tonight.” She called that out two or three times. She retreated back a little, and Ball went up to her again, looking to me, is if he catched hold of her, but I can’t swear to that. Then they went towards the gate and I heard the latch of the gate leading into Ball’s orchard and they disappeared. My wife was out that night. I had left the baby in the cradle and I hastened back. After they disappeared I did not stay a minute. Next morning I was at work at Mr. Freeman’s in the turnip close. I was there a little before six. When I was in Freeman’s field I saw Weekley Ball coming across it with a hoe on his shoulder at first. He took it off, and kept dropping it as he came up, and wished me good morning. There is road at the side of the close, but no road across where he was coming. There is a lime kiln in the lordship of Ringstead. He was coming in the direction from that lime kiln. I know the Denford and Keyston lane. The Keystone lane runs to the right of the lime kilns. Weekley Ball had a rood of land in that direction, but I don’t know whether he had it at that time. Ringstead field was enclosed in 1840. The road leading to Keystone is the boundary of Ringstead parish running between that and Denford. I worked on the farm adjoining that road several years. In 1850 it was in a very bad state. I’ve had the wagon wheels sunk up to the hubs. – Cross examined by Mr. Gaches. I have been at Woodford five years come March. I had no reason for leaving, but my landlord gave me notice to quit. I left two young women there. There was two young women come to visit me, but they were distant relations. One was Harriet French from Oundle; the other was a Bird – Emma – from Oundle. I don’t know that she came from a house of ill-fame. It is unknown to me if she did. I don’t know what relation she was to me. My missus said she was distant relation. They came to me for shelter and to visit. I don’t know that French came from Peterborough. They stopped a day or two – perhaps three and went away. I defy any man to say I have kept a house of ill fame. There was not a more respectable house in the village. In 1850 Lydia Atley was missing. A policeman came to me and took what I said down in writing. I did not go before a magistrate. The superintendent of police came to me two or three years ago and took my statement. I lived in Ringstead just at the bottom of Raunds Lane, a tiled house with a grape vine running up it. It was nearly a fortnight after what I have state occurred. I was seen by the police two or three times before I said anything to them. They came to fetch my missus – By Mr. Markham – The police but I don’t know who came to me in the reaping field. I never signed it. The police told me they took my statement up to Squire Wilkins – By Mr. Duthy – Prisoner had no other tool with him but the hoe.
Elizabeth Gunn: I am a widow, living at Ringstead, and live in a house not far from the prisoner’s orchard. I remember the night Lydia Atley was lost. About ten o’clock that night I was in my house; the door was open. I heard screams which appeared to come from Weekley Ball’s orchard. My house is a little way off the garden. Cross examined by Mr. Gaches: I went before Mr. Wilkins. That was directly after Lydia Atley was missed. From that time to this I have seen nobody about it. There is great excitement at Ringstead about this. People are wild about it. I have not heard that in order to do Ball, a great many people were ready to come up to say anything that was wanted. My door is in that direction. That is why I say the sound seemed to come from there. By Mr. Markham: there is fence round by garden, parting it from Ball’s orchard. My clock stands near the door. I looked at it after I heard those screams.
Hannah Hill: I am the wife of John Hill, of Woodford. In 1850 I lived at Ringstead. I remember quite well the night that Lydia Atley was lost. On that night I went into Mrs. Gunn’s house, about half past nine. Before I left Mrs. Gunn’s premises I heard three screams from the direction of Mr. Beeby’s orchard, opposite Mrs. Gunn’s home. They appeared in the direction of the Back Lane on Weekley Ball’s premises. I knew Lydia Atley’s voice quite well when I heard screams. I said I thought they were Lydia Atley’s voice. – By Mr. Gaches – My husband has been examined today. I said this same thing to Mr. Wilkins, fourteen years come July. I have some relations at Oundle, named Ball and a cousin named Laurie. I don’t know that my husband has any relation there. I never heard he had. I never had no young ladies living with me. I recollect two females named French and Bird. I think one said she was a great aunt of mine. I took them in as lodgers. Young ladies did not come to my house nor young gentlemen either.
Richard Warren: I am a labourer at Ringstead and have lived there 47 years. I know the road leading from Mr. Peach’s house towards Keyston. That was in an open field state before enclosures, with a hedge on the Denford side, but none on the Ringstead side, which, with the hedge, was made after the enclosure. Rowards five o’clock I dug up a head – a skull – about five feet from the stool of the hedge – about one foot from the then side of the ditch. I examined it and laid it on a bank and put some grass over it. I continued there till five minutes before six, digging further into the ditch. Thomas Burnham then came down and I showed it to him. I left off and went home, leaving the skull on the bank covered with a piece of grass. I told my wife. Next morning I went to work in the lime kilns and when my master came at ten o’clock he told me I should have gone and levelled the mound. I said I thought there was another little job wanted doing. I thought I’d found Lydia Atley. After this I went up after dinner to bare the remainder. I began to dig and Ephraim Abbott came to help. We discovered the shoulder bones first, and then went on working till we laid it quite bare – the skeleton I mean.. It lay with the head towards the ditch and the feet straight towards the road. The face was downwards. After that I sent for Inspector Williamson. In first taking out the skull I had broken it in three parts. Mr. Leete was also sent for. Mr. Leete got in the hose and examined the bones. I got into the hole with him and told him where abouts the skull lay. I took the feet up and laid them on the board and the legs, trying to place them as they lay in the earth – the thigh bones and the rest of the skeleton. We took it down to Denford and put it into Mr. Sandland’s house. After we had uncovered the bones I looked very carefully among the earth but found nothing but bones. I have known the lane 15 or 20 years. I was a sloughy place. Carts went that way, but they sometimes could hardly get up. After I took up the head I examined it – By Mr. Gaches there was no hair. I have never dug up bones before. Addington parish adjoins Ringstead. I don’t know anything about skeletons being found there. I heard that a skeleton was found in Addington parish said to be Lydia Atley’s but whether it was a Christian or not I don’t know. This skull was about 18 inches from, the surface. There was no water where I found the skull; there was none excepting in the ditch. The skeleton lay dry. I found the skull quite bare. I don’t think there a mould left on it. The earth did not stick to it. The earth about the skeleton was quite mouldy – very light and quite dark. There were some pebbles each side of it, no clay. The body part was about 18 inches deep. I don’t recollect the time this road was made a stone road. By Mr. Markham: There is a bit of greenward nearer ten feet than five between the ditch and the hard road.
Henry Dix: I am a labourer at Ringstead, and have lived there all my days. I remember Lydia Atley being lost. She used often to come to my place. About a fortnight before she was lost she came to me to draw a tooth for her, which I was unwilling to do because she was very large in the family way. It was the third tooth on the left side of the lower jaw. I heard of the skeleton being found. Before it was examined I made an observation to Inspector Williamson and Mr. Leete about the tooth being out. I said I thought if it was Lydia Atley’s that would be missing. I saw the skull afterwards (A fragment of the jaw was produced) there is a tooth wanting in the lower jaw where the tooth was drawn from Lydia Atley. By Mr. Duthy When I drew this tooth she had most of her other teeth – all the front teeth were (Other teeth were missing from the jaw but they had evidently fallen out since death. The cavity of the one spoken to by this witness appeared to be nearly filled by spongeous bone; the others were quite clear and empty.) By the Chairman: I am in the habit of drawing teeth. By Mr. Gaches: I am quite accurate about the jaw. I drew the tooth with a pair of nippers. I can’t say if it was fanged tooth. I am quite sure it was a double tooth. She sat on the ground and I stood before her. I have named to many people about that tooth. I told Inspector Williamson something on the day the skeleton part of the body was found. I had not been the day before to examine the skull. Mr. Peach was the first I heard tell of it and after that I told him what I recollected. By Mr. Markham: Mr. Peach told me nothing but that the skull was found.
Inspector Williamson: I live in Thrapston. I went to the Denford and Ringstead Lane on the 4th February. When I got there I saw a skeleton apparently of a human being, lying with the belly downwards and the feet towards the centre of the road. I remained there till Mr. Leete, the surgeon came. It appeared to me to be from 20 inches to 2 feet – not more than two feet. The soil it lay upon was a black light earth. After Mr. Leete and Warren had removed the skeleton I dug down below where it had lain, not more than three of four inches; under that was strong clay and the water came in. the place where the skeleton lay is much lower than the centre of the road. Rushes are growing in that neighbourhood. I examined the spot carefully around for several feet. The nature of the ground was the same as where the skeleton lay; but the ground was light there. We found nothing. Dix came up and said if it was Lydia Atley’s he might know it, as he had drawn a tooth from her sometime before. Some person said “Well the bones are there.” He took up the jaw and said it was as he said. We removed the skeleton to an empty house belonging to the Rev. P. Sandland at Denford.
Mr. J. G. Leete: I am a surgeon at Thrapston. On Thursday February 4th I went to a lane leading from Denford to Keystone, about alf a mile from Mr. Peach’s lodge. I found a skeleton in a rench about 18 or 20 inches below the surface, lying at right angles to the road. I got into the trench and removed bone by bone and Williamson took possession of it and placed it on a board. The skeleton was lying with the chest and toes downward, the feet close together, so that the heels touched. I am of opinion that the body must have been put in naked. I afterwards examined the skeleton and found that it was a female. I should say it had been in the earth from 12 to 20 years. I found no other bones but those belonging to this skeleton. Assuming that the woman had been in the family way, I think the foetal bones would have been equally destroyed with the skin and cartilages of the woman. All the bones of the trunk were perfect. The head had previously been removed. The right thigh bone was broken, probably about the time the earth was removed. The skeleton appeared to me to be about…..feet two inches long. Looking at the fragment of the jaw produced I see that the cavity on the left side of the jaw has been filled up; the other teeth have dropped out. From its appearance, I should certainly say that the tooth was non-existent at the time it was placed in the earth. I should take the skeleton to be that of a middle-aged person.
Mr. Gaches said he could not cross examine Mr. Leete without the presence of the skeleton and as he understood Mr. Markham meant to apply for an adjournment of the hearing he suggested that it might take place at once.
Mr. Markham said there was not time to produce the skeleton now and, as he had other witnesses, her agreed with Mr. Gaches as to an Adjournment.
The Bench accordingly adjourned the hearing till eleven o’clock on Thursday.
Thursday
The proceedings in this remarkable case were again resumed today and the interest and excitement seemed if anything, to have increased. During the whole of the day the Court was crowded to excess and numbers of persons outside vainly endeavoured to obtain admittance. The prisoner showed not the least agitation, but was calm and collected and appeared to pay much attention to the evidence.
Mr. H.P. Markham appeared for the prosecution and the case for the prisoner was watched by Mr. Gaches. The magistrates were General Arbuthnot in the chair; Lord Lyveden, W.B. Stopford Esq., the Hon. Fitzpatrick, Henry Vernon and the Rev. William Duthy.
The proceedings were commenced by the evidence of Mr. Leete, which was given on Monday, being read over and Mr. Markham asking that gentleman if he had anything further to add.
Mr. Leete said “In reference to the foetal bones it is an acknowledged fact that these bones contain more animal than earthy matter and judging from the position of the skeleton, those bones would be deeper in the soil. I am therefore of the opinion that they would be more liable to be acted upon or destroyed but I am not prepared to swear that they would be entirely obliterated.”
Mr. Gaches: this is qualifying your previous opinion is it not? Mr. Leetes: It is.
Cross examined: I saw this skeleton before it was removed from the earthy matter in which it was deposited. I did not take and in situ sketch of it. I observed the nature of the soil in which it was embedded but I have not examined it chemically. I should say it was not at all of a peaty character. I did not perceive nay clay in it or any chalk. I could not say whether there was lime in it as I did not examine the soil for that purpose. The soil was of the usual character but was very soft and, as I was removing the thigh and the leg bones they left an impression. From this I gather that the soil was moist. I am not prepared to state that, medically speaking, when a body is deposited in soft soil, adipose substance would not form. I did not know that when adipose substance is formed the body remains unchanged for many years. I found simply the bones and I did not find any finger ring. I was careful in removing the bones, but after I had got all of them, I did not make any further search. I removed all the bones I could find. Amongst the bones I did not discover any bony substance belonging to an infant. I saw the impression of the skull on the earth but I did not examine the soil. I did not find any hair and I am not prepared to state that, if any were there I should have found it. I did not make any search after removing the bones. The skeleton was entire, except the skull. The bones of the neck and the vertebrae were entire. I did not find the ribs perfect; they were very much broken. This would arise partly from decomposition. They were fractured, but I did not find any fracture that I am able to say was caused before death. I knew the supposed deceased, Lydia Atley, when she was alive. I attended her in the Union Workhouse some years before when she was delivered of a child, and I can therefore judge as to her age. In my opinion she was about thirty. I do not recollect whether she had a good head of hair, or the colour of it. I do not know anything about her teeth, and I am not prepared to give any evidence relating to her during her lifetime. The skeleton evidence is that of a female and I arrive at that conclusion from the formation of the pelvis and the diameter was large from wing to wing. This would be the case with a female. There is a great difference in the formation of a male pelvis and that of a female. I do not remember the great American case, where a pelvis was said to be that of a female and was afterwards found to be that of a male. Nothing beyond the pelvis leads me to the conclusion that the skeleton was that of a female. Mr. Gaches: Is it not possible that you may be mistaken?
Witness: It is possible to be mistaken on almost any point, but I have sworn that I consider the skeleton is that of a female. The pelvis was attached t the skeleton. I have said that the skeleton had been in the earth from 12 to 20 years. I have not previously examined a skeleton that had been in the earth about that number of years. As to the foetal remains I have qualified the opinion which I gave on Monday.
Mr. Gaches: If this is the skeleton of a woman and she was 9months with child, as Lydia Atley was said to have been, ought you not to have found some foetal remains?
Witness: There is a probability that there would have been some. I have not searched the soil below a certain depth. Those who have searched more than I have would be in a better position to speak about the absence of foetal remains.
Mr. Gaches: Would you not have expected to find some foetal bones if the skeleton had been that of a woman nine months pregnant with child?
Witness: Yes, I have no hesitation in saying that I should have expected to find some foetal remains, if the body of which this is the skeleton had contained a nine month foetus. On Monday a portion of the jaw was produced. The cavity of the missing tooth is filled up with a deposit which would be formed in process of time during life. I am not prepared to say that deposit would have been formed in a fortnight after extraction. Lydia Atley resided at London End, in the village of Ringstead and so did the prisoner. The distance, I should think, from London End to where the body was found would be about a mile. I am acquainted with an occupation road, which would take a person from London End to where the skeleton was found by half a mile. Ball’s back premises join the Back Lane and these premises would be farther off from where the skeleton was found than the front part of the premises would be. The road near where the body was found was re-constructed within less than 13 years. I don’t recollect any skeletons being dug up in Thrapston, or one in Addington said to be the skeleton of Lydia Atley. I heard that one was dug up at Addington, but I do not know that it was said to be that of Lydia Atley. Re-Examined: When I went to examine the bones it was between four and five in the evening. The lateness of the evening prevented me from making a diligent search as I should otherwise have made. I have had great experience as an accoucheur, and I think it is probable that if Lydia Atley was murdered in the orchard she might have given birth to a child. I would qualify this by assuming that she had symptoms of labour during the day. I know the road from Peach’s house to Keyston, and I recollect the enclosure of Ringstead field in 1841. The road was fenced on the Ringstead side of the road. The fence consisted of posts and rails.
Mr. Gaches: Assuming that Lydia Atley had had no previous symptoms of labour, would it be possible for her to give birth to a child at the time she was being murdered?
Witness: Certainly not; but if she had symptoms of labour during the day, she might have given birth to a child in the agonies of death.
Lord Lyveden: Can you say how long the skeleton has been in the ground?
Witness: No I cannot but I should say from 12 to 20 years.
Lord Lyveden: Do not the bones of infants decay more rapidly than those of adults.
Witness: they are generally supposed to decay more rapidly.
Lord Lyveden: Can you say how much sooner infants’ bones decay than those of adults?
Witness: No I cannot.
William Orlando Markham said: I am physician at St. Mary’s Hospital London, and was formerly lecturer on physiology and anatomy at that hospital. This morning I have seen a skeleton at the station house, and I have examined it. It has all the characteristics of the skeleton of a female. It is impossible to say how long it has been in the soil, as so much depends on the nature of the soil and the damp to which it is exposed. It might have been in the ground for any time within the last twenty years. I do not think, from the edges of the bones that they have been in the ground for ages and must qualify that expression by saying for a century or so. I come to this conclusion from the fact that the bones are solid and not easily rubbed down by the fingers and the edges re sharp and not rounded. If it be assumed that the woman had symptoms of labour in the morning, the process would have gone on from that hour and by the evening one of the most difficult parts of the labour would have been accomplished. In this condition she could have walked about. Assuming all this to be the case, I can readily understand that in a moment of great mental or bodily excitement the woman might have rapidly given birth to a child. There are cases where children been found between their mother’s legs after death and born after death. From the jaw I am able to say that the tooth which is wanting on the left side of the lower jaw is the first molar tooth.
Mr. Markham: Looking at the cavity in the jaw can you say how long the tooth was extracted before the woman died?
Witness: After careful investigation, I find that the woman had somewhat of a peculiarity in her double teeth. There is a molar tooth up on the opposite side of the jaw and this tooth is remarkably small, therefore I must come to the conclusion that the fangs of the molar tooth on this side of the jaw were equally small. It so happens that a considerable portion of the jaw which received the socket of the tooth has been removed so that only a small so that only a small space would be required below the level for the entrance of the tooth – that is to say only a small cavity is to be accounted for. I can imagine that a great deal of what is supposed to be a deposit in the cavity is in reality the natural structure of the jaw and that the fangs did not actually enter into the jaw so far as is supposed. I would not fix myself to any particular time, but I can say that the tooth was not extracted long before the death of the woman, because if it had I conclude that the deposit at the base of the bone would have been more consolidated and firm than it is at the present moment. The natural process of nature after the extraction of a tooth is, that the hole is filled up by the contraction of bony matter round it, but I can find no appearance of the contraction of bony matter round this cavity.
Examination continued: On looking at both sides of the jaw bone, but more especially on the inner side, I find that a considerable portion of the natural structure has been removed, whether accidentally or otherwise I cannot say. I would remark that, in all probability, if the woman had her tooth extracted, it was on account of it being decayed and that it is very possible and very probable that a considerable portion of the fangs of the tooth was also rotten and decayed. If such a tooth was extracted without one or two of its fangs, n explanation would be afforded why the cavity should have been partially filled up. I assume, of course, that a perfectly healthy tooth was not pulled out. The skeleton is that of an adult female.
Cross examined: I am not prepared to say a male could not have had a pelvis resembling the one which belongs to the skeleton. It is however, impossible as far as my knowledge goes. There is no difference of opinion amongst medical men as to the ideality of a male or female pelvis. Judging from the formation of the pelvis I am of opinion that this is the skeleton of a woman and there is another fact which leads me to this conclusion. The bones are more delicately formed and are smaller than those of a male. The skeleton is a small one, and I should expect to see small bones, but if it had been that of a male I should have expected to see larger bones. During my anatomical experience I have found that sometimes the bones of a male are as small and as delicate as those of a female, and I have no doubt that sometimes the bones of a female are as large as those of a male. I have no other reason than the one I have given for arriving at a conclusion that the bones are those of a female skeleton. I have been shown a portion of the lower jaw and it is entirely a matter of speculation to suppose that the tooth was extracted a short time before death. I would qualify the word speculation by saying that, if supposed facts are correct, it amounts to something more than speculation. I am of opinion that the tooth was not extracted long before death, or else the present appearance would not have existed. I now refer to the appearance of the spot where the tooth once existed. Had it been extracted long before death – I mean by a long length of time say a year – instead of our seeing this open cancellated structure, the cavity would have been more contracted that it is now, as the result of absorption. A great portion of what is supposed to be a deposit is in reality part of the jaw. I am of opinion that the tooth has not come out since death. If it had it would have shown where it was attached and there is no sign where any tooth could have been attached. There has been a dislodgment of bone on the inner side of the jaw up to the edge of the first two teeth. I believe there was once a tooth where the space is, and I am of the opinion that the three teeth which were before the space filled by the supposed missing tooth were removed by the dislodgment of the bone, which appears to have recently gone from the inner side of the jaw. I will not say that it is impossible for the tooth to have been attached to the alveolar process on the inner side of the jaw. It is almost impossible, but I will not say it is impossible. I am of opinion that some portion of the foetus ought to be found in the skeleton, supposing that the body contained a nine months child. I have not been to look at the spot where the skeleton was found. I should not have expected to find any hair if the skeleton had been in the soil for about 13 years. From the description of the soil which I have seen attached to the skeleton, I think it is capable of causing a rapid decay of animal structure. Air and water tend to decay, and as the soil is a light loamy one, the air could easily have penetrated to the skeleton. It is quite certain that the soil was very damp and the skeleton was almost in a puddle, because a muddy liquid has penetrated into all the holes in the bones, adipocire would not form where the body was in immediate contact with the soil not more than two feet from the surface, at least that is my opinion. Where a body is immersed in water adipocire would form, but not where the body is in contact with the air and the earth.
Re-examined: the body has been exposed to rapid decay and the fact of earth being found in all the holes and crevices of the bones shows that it must have been lying at some time or other in almost a muddy pool or earth of that consistency.
By Mr. Gaches: I see no reason for saying that the skeleton might not have been interred as a skeleton.
Mr. H.P. Markham here desired that the jaw bone might be handed over to Dr. Markham to be kept by him until the Assizes. He made this application on the score of expense, as he understood that the bone would be very carefully examined by an eminent London medical man on the part of the prisoner. Of course the bone would not be meddled with unless the medical man on the part of the prisoner and Dr. Markham agreed to do so for the purpose of making further investigations.
Mr. Gaches said personally he had no objection to Mr. Markham’s application but situated as he was he was compelled to oppose anything that he might afterwards be told he should have opposed. He was very much obliged to Mr. Markham for bringing the matter before the Bench on the score of expenses, but he intended that Dr. Taylor should be engaged to put the bone under microscopical examination whether it was in London or Thrapston. That being the case he thought Mr. Markham had better withdraw his application. Mr. Markham said he would withdraw his application, his only reason for making it was because he thought that if the bone was taken to London it would be more convenient to the gentleman who would be engaged by the prisoner.
Samuel Fairey said: I am a shoemaker, residing at Rushden. In 1850 I resided at Ringstead. I have known the prisoner from a child. He had a wife in 1850. In that year I was living in a cottage nearly opposite the prisoner’s house. I remember the night when Lydia Atley was missed. It was the night of 22nd of July 1850. On the following morning I got up at three o’clock for the purpose of going to work. After I came down stairs I remained in my living room for about five minutes and then I went into my workshop. My workshop and pantry are the width of the cottage. The pantry window looks northwards towards Ball’s premises; the shop window looks towards the south opposite. When I opened the pantry door I heard someone pumping on Ball’s premises. I also heard a footstep, as though leaving the pump but I could not see anyone. I head the footsteps again, as if a person was coming to the pump and I heard someone pump, but I could not see anyone. I did not hear anything after that and I shut the door.
Cross examined: I left Ringstead in the following March, and the reason I did so was because the fact of a woman being supposed murdered so near my cottage unnerved my wife and I was compelled to leave. The circumstances of the supposed death of Lydia Atley unnerved me as well and I have not recovered yet. I sometimes think of it now when I am in bed, and when this is the case I cannot go to sleep. I am sometimes subject to dreams but I don’t know that I ever dreamed about this murder. There was a skeleton found I an adjoining parish, But I have not dreamed about that one. I have a paper which contains an account of the skeleton which was then found and the paper says it was believed to be the skeleton of Lydia Atley. I have the paper in my possession but I do not have it with me. I never gave any evidence before. Superintendent Knight was the first person who called upon me on this subject. It was a Tuesday morning when I heard the pumping. I did not hear any voice or whispering. I cannot tell whether the footsteps were like those of a ghost because I have never heard any.
Re-examined: In consequence of the report that Lydia Atley was murdered Ball’s premises were searched by the police, but I do not know what was done. The thought that a murder had been committed so near our cottage compelled me and my wife to remove.
William Weekley said: I am a shoemaker and I now reside in Ringstead. In 1850 I was residing in Northampton. I recollect the prisoner coming to me about a fortnight or three weeks after Lydia Atley was missed and his saying he wanted to speak to me. We then went to the Ram Inn together and sat in a long room. There was no other person in the room. He then told me that he wanted me to write a letter to say that I had seen Lydia Atley. I knew the woman, but I had not sent her for five weeks previous to this as I had been in Northampton about six weeks. I wrote a letter and I sent it to my mother by post. I posted it myself. In this letter I enclosed a note for the prisoner and wrote “Give this to Weekley.”
Thomas Walters said: I am a farmer residing in this neighbourhood. In the months of July and August 1850 I was in the police force of this county. Mr. Markham was about to ask whether in the latter month witness did not have some conversation with the prisoner about Lydia Atley, when Mr. Gaches interposed and said such a question could not be put.
The Bench, however, held that the question was admissible.
Examination continued. I cannot recollect at the present time that I had a conversation with him, except by the police report. Mr. Markham was here about to hand the report to the witness but Mr. Gaches objected. Such a document, he said, ought not to be handed to a witness. The question was argued at some length, after which the Bench said they were of the opinion that the document should be handed to the witness.
Examination continued. The whole of the report, except the upper part and the signatures is in my handwriting. In 1850, in the exercise of my duties as constable, I had, with others, to investigate the cause of Lydia Atley’s disappearance. The matter did not occur in my district. Mr. Markham here handed the report to witness and after he had read it he said: In the second part of the report, which is in my handwriting, I observe the copy of a letter. I cannot say from what I copied that letter, but I am positive that I copied it from some letter.
Mr. Markham: Did you ever see a letter in reference to the disappearance of Lydia Atley in the possession of the prisoner?
Witness: I cannot swear that I ever did. On that point my memory fails me. I have spoken to the prisoner about this supposed murder.
Mr. Markham: What did you say to him?
Mr. Gaches objected to this question and Mr. Markham said he would put it in another form – What did the prisoner say to the witness?
Mr Gaches said he must also object to the question in its present form. Such a question could not be put to the witness, who had been a Constable, until it was first ascertained that he had told the prisoner before asking him any questions that anything which he might say may be used against him in any investigation that might take place. Until that was done, he contended that the question could not be put.
Mr. Markham objected to this view of the law and desired that Mr. Gaches should give him an authority for the principle which he had laid down. Mr. Gaches said he could not give any legal authority. The principle, however, was adhered to in Green’s case, at Cambridge, and he saw the principle alluded to in the papers. Mr. Markham said he would not press his question, as he thought, by calling another witness, he should be relieved of the difficulty in which he was placed.
Examination continued. I do not know that I ever saw Mr. Wilkins, the magistrate, on this matter, or respecting the letter.
Thomas Green said: I am an innkeeper at Ringstead, and I lived there in 1850. I remember the time when Lydia Atley was missed. A short time after she was missed Weekley Ball came to my house. He came to me one morning at about nine o’clock. He brought with him a letter, and he wished me to read it, at the same time saying that he thought it would convince me that Lydia Atley was living.
Mr. Markham: Do you know where the letter was dated from?
Mr. Gaches: I object to this question because it is partly showing the contents of the letter.
Mr. Markham: Was the letter signed and dated?
Witness: Yes it was.
Mr. Markham: By whom was it signed?
Mr. Gaches objected to the question being answered and Mr. Markham said he would not press it.
Examination continued: After I read the letter I gave it back to the prisoner.
Mr. Markham he had now proved that the letter had been in the possession of the prisoner and that he had the custody of it. This being so, he would now call upon Mr. Gaches to produce the letter, and failing his production of it he proposed giving secondary evidence as to the contents of the letter.
Mr. Gaches said he had received an intimation to produce the letter, but he could not produce that which he had not got. He contended that Mr. Markham must go a little further before he could give secondary evidence as to the letter. There was nothing to show that the letter which the prisoner had was the original document or a copy of a copy. There was nothing to show that the letter had ever reached the prisoner.
Mr. Markham (to witness): Was the letter in an envelope, and was there any direction upon it?
Witness: I cannot say.
The question of calling secondary evidence as to the contents of the letter was then argued and at the conclusion Mr. Markham said he must admit that the letter which the prisoner had shown the last witness might have been only a copy of the original document. He must therefore request that Mrs. Weekley, who lived in Ringstead, and to whom the letter was sent, might be called to give evidence. This the Bench agreed to, and a horse and gig was despatched to Ringstead, to convey Mrs. Weekley to the court. Mr Gaches hoped that Mrs. Weekley would not be communicated with till she came to court and said it was possible to bring 500 witnesses from Ringstead to prove any point that was needed. Mr. Markham said there was a strong feeling in Ringstead against the prisoner, but he did not think it was right to say that 500 persons could be brought from the village to prove any point that was needed. Mr. Gaches said he was threatened with personal injury by some of the inhabitants of the village because he appeared in that Court to defend the prisoner. The Chairman said the language which Mr. Gaches used was very strong in speaking of the whole population of the village. Mr. Gaches said he did not mean to say that the feeling was not a natural one, but it existed to the extent he had stated. Mr. Markham said there was a feeling of intense excitement in the parish of Ringstead but he thought his learned friend was out of order in condemning the whole parish.
Mr. H.L. Bayly said: I am Chief Constable of the County of Northampton. Information was given to me in 1850 of Lydia Atley having been missed. I have seen Mr. Wilkins on the subject many times. He was a magistrate residing in Ringstead, and at that time Ringstead was in the Wellingborough division. Great exertions were made by the police at that time to endeavour to find out what had become of Lydia Atley. Mr. Wilkins always stated that there was a possibility she would turn up alive some day. An advertisement was inserted in the Police Gazette offering a reward of £50 for information as to Lydia Atley, and hand bills to the same effect were circulated all over the country. The advertisement was here about to be read, but this was objected to by Mr. Gaches. His objection was, however, overruled. Examination continued. No result followed the exertions that were made to endeavour to discover what had become of the woman.
Eliza Weekley, the mother of William Weekley, who wrote the letter, had by this time arrived from Ringstead, and having been sworn she gave the following evidence: I reside at Ringstead, and I lived there in 1850. Soon after Lydia Atley was missing a letter came to me. I can’t say how long this was after she was missed, nor can I say who wrote the letter, as I did not see the letter written. I cannot remember the handwriting, as it so long since the letter came to me. I might have seen the handwriting before. The letter made no impression on me. I gave it to the prisoner, and the reason why I did so was because in the letter it was stated that I give it to him. Soon after I received it I went out in the yard where Ball was and said “Here’s a letter”. I only received one letter at that time Lydia Atley was missed. I read the letter but I do not remember exactly what were its contents. The letter was in an envelope and there was nothing in it but the letter. There was no writing on the inside of the envelope. When I received it I knew the handwriting and I expect it was my sons. I gave the letter to Ball
Cross Examined: I can’t say how long it was after Lydia Atley was missing that I received the letter. I cannot say how many letters I received from my son. I know he did not write a dozen. My son has not been more trouble to me than many parents had with their children. I know that the letter came from my son as it came from Northampton. I knew Lydia Atley and I saw her a little time before she was missing. I cannot say whether she had much hair. I suppose she had a comfortable head of hair like other people.
Re-examined: I only gave one letter to Weekley Ball. It was, I expect, signed by my son; he would sign a letter when he wrote to his mother.
Mr. Markham said he should now call Weekley into the box, and read the copy of the letter, in order that he might ask him whether, to the best of his recollection, that was the copy of the letter which he wrote to his mother.
Mr. Gaches objected to this and the matter was argued, but the Bench decided that the copy of the letter should be read.
William Weekley was then recalled and admitted that the following was a copy of the letter he sent to his mother at the request of the prisoner.
Northampton Aug. 12th 1850
I write you a few lines to inform you that I saw L. Atley in Northampton. I was going down Castle Street at about eight p.m. or half past eight p.m. on Sunday night. There was a man with her with a long smock frock on and a cape.
William Weekley. Cross examined: The letter was directed to Mrs. Henry Weekley; I did not write another to Mrs. Ball.
Mr. Gaches submitted that the letter could not be put in evidence, because in the police report it was called “Copy of letter to Mrs. Ball, Ringstead”. The witness stated that he had not written a letter to Mrs. Ball, and , therefore, he contended that it could not be received as a letter sent to Mrs. Weekley. Mr. Markham said it was evident that there was a mistake in copying of the letter. The letter was sent to Mrs. Weekley, and the person who had copied it in the police report had made a mistake in the name of the person to whom it was addressed. If he had read the letter from a document which he held in his hand, the argument about the name would not have arisen. In this document, which as well as the other from the police officer, the letter was said to be a copy of a letter sent to Mrs. Weekley. Mr. Gaches said he must press his objection and the magistrates retired from the court to consider their decision. After being absent for a while, Mr. Markham desired that the Bench should be called, and on their re-appearance he said he would not now press that the letter should be received as evidence. Before the Assizes he would give Mr. Gaches notice that he must produce the original letter, and failing production of that letter it would be for the Judge to say whether the evidence he had submitted should be received. The witnesses who could speak to the letter would have to be bound over and the Judge could then have them examined if he thought proper. The Bench thought this was an excellent arrangement.
John Fredrick Nobles said: I am superintendent of police in this district. It is 21 yards and one foot from where Hill said he stood when he saw Ball and Lydia Atley go up the slip from Mrs. Hill’s beerhouse, to the footpath on which they walked. From the stile in Cherry Orchard, where Hill said he stood when Ball and Lydia Atley entered the orchard to Ball’s gate , it is 44 yards. It is 39 yards and two feet from the place where Groom said he stood smoking his pipe, to the bottom entrance into the orchard. The orchard is 37 yards long by 29 yards broad. It is 165 yards from Mrs. Gunn’s house to the orchard. The lane where the skeleton was found is 40 feet 8 inches from fence to fence. From the stool of the fence to the spot where the skull was pointed out to me as being found, was two feet six inches and it was two feet two inches across the new dyke. From the feet of the skeleton to the centre of the road is 16 feet.
This was the whole of the evidence and Mr. Gaches said he would not make a speech on behalf of the prisoner, as he thought it would be better for the ends of justice and better for the prisoner that the case should be left in the hands of the magistrates. They had heard the evidence of the several witnesses, and it would be for the Bench to say whether they would dismiss the case or would send the prisoner for trial.
General Arbuthnot paid a compliment to Mr. Gaches for the manner in which he had conducted the defence, and said he had never seen any legal gentleman exert himself more on behalf of his client than he had done.
After a few moments deliberation the Chairman said: The magistrates, having heard the whole of the evidence, have decided that the prisoner must be committed to take his trial at the Assizes, for the wilful murder of Lydia Atley.
The prisoner was then called upon as to whether he had anything to say. His answer was “I have nothing to say.”
The prisoner, throughout the day, conducted himself with much firmness, and seemed to pay great attention to the evidence. Towards the close of the case, however, there were traces of great anxiety visible on his countenance, and as far as can be judged, the decision of the magistrates was hardly that which he at first expected. After leaving the Court, we understand that he seemed to feel very acutely the position in which he was placed and that the apparent indifference which characterised him at the commencement of the hearing gave way to a nervous anxiety.
On Friday the prisoner was removed from the station at Thrapston, and was lodged in the County Gaol.
The missing woman was described in the advertisement offering a reward for her discovery as follows:- Lydia Atley is a young woman, middle size, very fair skin, very light hair and eyes; her face is quite red from seorbutic eruption. She was badly dresses at the time she left home and had an old bonnet and shawl on. She was far advanced in pregnancy at the time.
|
