TRIAL OF FREDERICK EDWARD FRANCIS BYWATERS AND EDITH JESSIE THOMPSON
[THE OFFICIAL COURT TRANSCRIPT]
NATIONAL ARCHIVES HO 144 / 2685
Transcript of the Shorthand notes of Messrs. George Walpole & Co, Shorthand Writers to the Court, Portugal Street Buildings, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.2
HO 144 / 2685 in the National Archives in Kew is Crown copyright; the text that follows is © René Weis. In transcribing the verbatim account of the 1922 trial of Edith Thompson and Frederick Bywaters I have throughout retained, as far as possible, the idiosyncratic punctuation of HO 144 / 2685 and have reproduced its occasional inconsistencies. I resisted the temptation to break up the Prosecution’s and the Judge’s final addresses to the jury into shorter paragraphs as such do not feature in the original. Similarly with long quotations from Edith Thompson’s letters read out by the Prosecution and also with the detailed statements to the police by her and Bywaters. All these are reproduced here as they stand in HO 144 / 2685, as more or less continuous texts.
Missing from HO 144 / 2685 are three core documents relevant to the trial:
- The Solicitor-General’s opening address to the jury
- Cecil Whiteley’s and Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett’s final addresses to the jury.
These three key contributions to the trial are supplied from Notable British Trials (1923), edited by Filson Young. Young’s volume, which was authorised as a true account of the trial by the Director of Public Prosecutions, is available elsewhere on this website. NOTABLE BRITISH TRIALS 1923 It is now the sole extant source for these three important contributions to the trial.
The Solicitor-General’s final address to the jury coming, unusually, after Whiteley’s and Curtis-Bennett’s defences, has its first page missing in HO 144 / 2685. I have supplied the missing page from Notable British Trials.
There a few substantive differences between HO 144 / 2685 and Filson Young’s Notable British Trials, although that partly depends on interpreting ‘substantive’. As a verbatim account of the trial HO 144 / 2685 renders the authentic flavour of the trial in ways that Young could not do. Thus in HO 144 / 2685 all examinations are conducted in a Q & A manner. What in Young’s volume are consolidated statement by witnesses, in HO 144 / 2685 are protracted Q & A sessions, warts and all. Thus, for example, Young does not list Edith’s, or Bywaters’s, or the judge’s requests for clarifying page numbers in the bundles in front of them, rendered more confusing by the fact that a new pagination was introduced when the trial was already well under way. Nor does Young reproduce the judge’s more controversial interventions or his inability always to hear the witnesses. Some of his multiple interjections show a tenuous grasp of the proceedings, as when he suddenly asks ‘What is Shakespeare Crescent’ (Edith Thompson’s parents’ home where Bywaters was arrested); or when he asks about Mr Graydon:
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN Who is Mr W. E. Graydon?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: He is the witness, my Lord, Mrs Thompson’s father.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He is the father?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT. Yes.
The day before the same Mr Graydon had been in the witness-box giving evidence and the judge had taken notes from his statement.
Throughout this long verbatim court document, I have replaced the ‘A.’ of ‘Q & A’ with the witness’s name in each case, for the sake of clarity and accessibility. So that, for example:
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Did you find any signs of poisoning?
A. No.
Did you find any scars in the intestines?
A. No sir.
becomes
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Did you find any signs of poisoning?
SPILSBURY: No.
Did you find any scars in the intestines?
SPILSBURY: No sir.
TRIAL of
FREDERICK BYWATERS
And
EDITH THOMPSON
EDITED BY
FILSON YOUNG
NOTABLE BRITISH TRIALS
1923
WILLIAM HODGE & CO
THE TRIAL
WITHIN THE
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
OLD BAILEY, LONDON,
WEDNESDAY, 6th DECEMBER, 1922 .
Judge —
Mr JUSTICE SHEARMAN.
Counsel for the Crown —
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL.
Mr TRAVERS HUMPHREYS.
Mr ROLAND OLIVER.
(Instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions.)
Counsel for the Prisoner Frederick Bywaters —
Mr CECIL WHITELEY, K.C.
Mr HUNTLY JENKINS.
Mr MYLES ELLIOTT.
(Instructed by Mr Barrington Matthews.)
Counsel for the Prisoner Edith Thompson–
Sir HENRY Curtis-Bennett, KC.
Mr WALTER FRAMPTON.
Mr IVOR SNELL.
(Instructed by Mr F. A. S. Stern.)
[Copy Indictment No. 1. *
The King
AGAINST
FREDERICK EDWARD FRANCIS BYWATERS
AND
EDITH JESSIE THOMPSON.
Central Criminal Court.
Presentment of the Grand Jury.
- F. Bywaters and E. J. Thompson are charged with the following offence : —
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
MURDER.
Particulars of Offence.
- F. BYWATERS and E. J. THOMPSON
on the 4th day of October, 1922, in the County of Essex,
and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court
murdered Percy Thompson.
[* This is the Indictment upon which there was Conviction.]
[Copy Indictment No. 2 **
The King
AGAINST
FREDERICK EDWARD FRANCIS BYWATERS
AND
EDITH JESSIE THOMPSON.
Central Criminal Court.
Presentment of the Grand Jury.
- F. BYWATERS and E. J. THOMPSON are charged with the following offences :
[** The accused were not tried on this.]
FIRST COUNT :
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Conspiracy to Murder contrary to sec. 4 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. Particulars of Offence. F. E. F. Bywaters and E. J. Thompson on the 20th day of August, 1921, and on divers days between that date and the 2nd day of October, 1922, in the County of Essex, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, conspired together to murder Percy Thompson.
SECOND COUNT :
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Soliciting to Murder contrary to sec. 4 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. Particulars of Offence. E. J. THOMPSON on the 10th day of February, 1922, and on divers days between that day and the 1st day of October, 1922, in the County of Essex, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, did solicit and endeavour to persuade and did propose to F. E. F. Bywaters to murder Percy Thompson.
THIRD COUNT:
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Inciting to commit a misdemeanour. Particulars of Offence. E. J. THOMPSON on the 10th day of February, 1922, and on divers days between that day and the 1st day of October, 1922, in the County of Essex, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, did unlawfully solicit and incite F. E. F. Bywaters unlawfully to conspire with her, the said E. J. Thompson, to murder Percy Thompson.
FOURTH COUNT:
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Administering poison with intent to murder contrary to sec. 11 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. Particulars of Offence. E. J. THOMPSON on the 26th day of March, 1922, in the County of Essex, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, did administer to and cause to be taken by Percy Thompson certain poison or other destructive thing unknown with intent to murder the said Percy Thompson.
FIFTH COUNT:
STATEMENT OF OFFENCE.
Administering a destructive thing with intent to murder contrary to sec. 11 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861. Particulars of Offence. E. J. THOMPSON on the 24th day of April, 1922, in the County of Essex, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, did administer to and cause to be taken by Percy Thompson a certain destructive thing, namely, broken glass, with intent to murder the said Percy Thompson. ]
INDEX
LEGAL ARGUMENT
[CROWN’S OPENING: from Notable British Trials, 1923]
LAXTON, John A. H.
TAYLOR, Robert
PITTARD, Dora F.
CLEVELEY, Percy E.
WEBBER, John
MAUDSLEY, Dr Noel
GRIMES, Walter
MEW, Sergt: Walter
THOMPSON, Richard H.
GEAL, Cyril
DROUGHT, Percy J.
BYWATERS, Lilian
GRAYDON, William E.
FOSTER, Ernest
LESTER, Fanny M.
MYHILL, Frank E.
LESTER, Fanny M. Re-called
NEWBURY Arthur
CARLTON, Herbert
VELLENDER, Lilian
BROWN E. A.
LEE A. A.
JACOBS R.
HIGGINS C.
BYWATERS L. Re-called
PAGE F.
SCHOLES A.
JAMES P.
HANCOCK J.
SELLARS R.
HALL F.
WILLLIAMS L.
FORSTER H. W.
TAYLOR C. C.
WEBSTER J.
SPILBSURY B. H.
DEFENCE
BYWATERS F. E. F. (Prisoner)
BYWATERS Frederick E. F. (Prisoner) Re-called
THOMPSON, Edith J. (Prisoner)
THOMPSON, Mrs Edith J. (Prisoner) Re-called
GRAYDON, Miss Avis E.
GRAYDON, Mrs Ethel J.
[CLOSING SPEECH FOR BYWATERS: from Notable British Trials 1923]
[CLOSING SPEECH FOR EDITH THOMPSON: from Notable British Trials 1923]
[CLOSING SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION]
SUMMING-UP
SENTENCE
[APPEALS]
Edith and Freddy in the dock at the
Old Bailey © René Weis
FIRST DAY
[WEDNESDAY 6TH DECEMBER 1922]
Mr CECIL WHITELEY: My Lord, before the Prisoners plead to this indictment I have a submission to make and an application, and that is that in the interest of each of these Prisoners my submission to your Lordship, to assure fairness and justice, is that there there should be two separate trials.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Two separate trials on each count?
Mr CECIL WHITELEY: There is only one count in the indictment.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: A separate trial?
Mr CECIL WHITELEY: The first indictment charges them both as principals with the murder of Percy Thompson. I have had an opportunity of reading the depositions and reading the Exhibits and, in my submission, it is clear that there must be a question of the admissibility of evidence which may be evidence against one Prisoner and may not be evidence against the other, and that the introduction of such evidence must of necessity prejudice the case of the other Prisoner.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Whom do you appear for?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I appear for Bywaters, my Lord.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I appear for Mrs Thompson and I desire to associate myself with the application of my learned friend.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I appear on behalf of the Crown, my Lord and I hope your Lordship will refuse the application.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I will hear the grounds of the application. Have you anything to add Mr Whiteley?
CECIL WHITELEY: I do not want to go into any details at all; that is the ground of my application.
Mr JUSTICE SHEARMAN I can see no ground for granting the application.
CECIL WHITELEY: If your Lordship pleases.
The CLERK OF THE COURT – Frederick Edward Francis Bywaters and Edith Jessie Thompson, you are charged together on indictment with the offence of murder, the particulars being that on the 4th October in this year you murdered Percy Thompson. Frederick Edward Francis Bywaters, are you guilty or not guilty?
PRISONER BYWATERS – Not guilty.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT – Edith Jessie Thompson, are you guilty or not guilty?
PRISONER THOMPSON – Not guilty.
The jury were duly sworn.
(Proclamation)
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: The Prisoners at the bar, Frederick Edward Francis Bywaters and Edith Jessie Thompson, are charged on indictment that they on
the 4th October in this year murdered Percy Thompson. To this indictment they have severally pleaded not guilty and it is your charge to say, having heard the evidence, whether they or either of them be guilty or not.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: My Lord, before the Solicitor- General starts to open the case to the jury I have an objection to make to certain evidence that I understand the Solicitor-General desires to mention to the jury in his opening.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The convenient way is for me to order the jury to reture; I think that is the best way.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, my Lord; I think it is.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The jury will retire and you can make your objection.
(The jury retired, bailiffs being sworn to take them in charge.)
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: My Lord, there are two indictments, as your Lordship knows; one indictment charges both the Defendants with the crime of wilful murder, and then there is the second indictment with a number of counts charging conspiracy to incite murder and other charges. Now, my Lord, I understand that the indictment which is to be proceeded with is the first indictment. On that indictment I understand the Prosecution desire to open to the Jury certain letters which were found in the possession of the Defendant Bywaters written by the Defendant Thompson. My Lord, I appear for Mrs Thompson and, on behalf of Mrs Thompson, I object to the opening of those letters to the jury or in fact, of course, to the admissibility of those letters at any time in evidence as against Mrs Thompson upon the first indictment.
Mr JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is a little difficult to take them en bloc because there are so many; you will only need to pick out a sample?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, my Lord, but I am, in fact, objecting to all the letters which were put in as Exhibits before the Justices.
Mr JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Every one of them?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Every one of them. Now, my Lord, the charge in this indictment is a charge of murder, and, no doubt, the Solicitor-General is going to suggest to the jury that the actual blow which was struck was struck by the Defendant Bywaters. I do not think that he is going to suggest that any blow was struck at all by Mrs Thompson.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Struck, as l understand by the evidence, in the presence of Mrs Thompson.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: In the presence of Mrs Thompson. Now, my Lord, the letters that I am taking objection to contain certain passages and, of course, for the purpose of this objection I am not going to deal with what the evidence may be as to those letters, but those letters, upon the face of them, contain suggestions that Mrs Mrs Thompson was writing to Bywaters suggesting to the Defendant Bywaters that Bywaters should send her certain material for the purpose of giving it to her husband to cause his death and also suggestions that she was herself administering certain things to her husband. Now, my Lord, I submit that letters of such a kind as those, without discussing for a moment the weight of them, the admissibility of letters such as those cannot be acceded to until the Prosecution have, first of all, shewed that Mrs Thompson took some active part IN the murder, if it was a murder, of her husband.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is for the jury to decide, the matter of conspiracy.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, my Lord. Then if there were some act committed by Mrs Thompson, the Prosecution might then argue to your Lordship that they were entitled to put these letters in evidence, either to shew intent to rebut the Defence of accident, or to shew a system; but, until some act, some definite act, is proved by the Prosecution as against Mrs Thompson, then I submit that all these letters go to shew is that if the letters really mean what they are said to mean, Mrs Thompson is a person who would not be likely to commit the offence which is charged against her.
Mr JUSTICE SHEARMAN– I wish you would give me a sample, because a great many of the letters contain quite different matters, I mean matters of affection shewing the relations between the parties. Do you object to those too?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: In some letters, where there is matter which I object to, there is also a great deal of matter which I should really welcome, but I cannot, of course, say that part of a letter is evidence and part is not.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are at present arguing on letters which are suggesting a desire to kill this man or give assistance in killing him. Give me an example.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Exhibit 18, my Lord, is one and in the copy of the Exhibits it appears on page 38: “I took possession of it when he missed it and asked me for it I refused to give it him”; that is page 58 of my copy, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Whereabouts?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: The third paragraph: “I refused to give it him. He refuses to tell me where he got it” (reading to the words) “I have done son now”. My Lord, that is a sample. I was submitting that evidence of that sort is only admissible against Mrs Thompson for the purpose of shewing either that some act of hers was done with intent, or that that act was part of a system, or to rebut the defence that it was an accidental act on her part. Your lordship will remember, as having been one of the Court, that this matter was fully discussed in the case of The King and Armstrong which was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The decision was that Armstrong having been in possession of arsenic at a time when his wife, in fact, died, the Prosecution were entitled to say, You were not in innocent possession, as you say you were, of that arsenic, and we can shew that you were not in innocent possession of it because, in the month of October, your wife having died in February, you were using it again for the purpose of trying to kill someone. My Lord, that was the decision in that case, but there, of course, there was the evidence that Armstrong was in possession of poison, and it was the defence of Armstrong that he was in innocent possession of such poison, and, therefore, it was necessary to show from the point of view of the Prosecution that that defence which Armstrong was putting forward was a defence which was not a true defence upon the evidence which they had available to put before the jury, and so the Court of Criminal Appeal held. Now, in my submission, this is a very different case. I am in this difficulty; I do not know how the Solicitor-General is going to open this case to the jury.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Only in one indictment; it is a difficult question when evidence becomes admissible in rebuttal of defence, that is a very difficult question, as you know. Putting that aside altogether, is not this particular matter what I call evidence of felonious intent?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: That letter may be evidence —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I am putting aside the question which you and I will both take care of; evidence against one prisoner is not evidence against another; that, I think, the Jury will fully understand before the case is over.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I am not concerned with the case of Bywaters.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Putting aside that question, I do not underrate the intelligence of the jury, nor the capacity of Counsel to put quite obvious truths to them, but is not this evidence of a felonious intention of this lady who it is alleged was present at the murder?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: My Lord, in my submission not upon this Indictment. It would be evidence, I agree, and I should not, I say at once to your Lordship, be able to object to these letters upon the second indictment.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I follow that. I am not concerned with that; I am only concerned with the first Indictment.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Supposing these letters really mean (and I particularly do not want to deal with what they do mean), but supposing they really mean what upon the face of them they look to mean. This letter that I am referring to now, which is exhibit 18, was in fact written on April 24th of this year. Now the death of Mr Thompson took place in the early morning of 4th October of this year. Can it be possibly said that a letter written, even if it does mean as I say what it looks to mean on the face of it upon 24th April of this year can be evidence that upon 4th October Mrs Thompson, who certainly struck no blow – it is not suggested that she did — was a party to the killing of her husband six months after? My Lord, there is surely a locus poenitentiae for everyone, and if a letter is written and is even meant to convey that Mrs Thompson was anxious in April that her husband should die, can it possibly be said to be evidence that she although present and not striking any blow upon 4th October was in fact a party, a principal, to the killing of her husband? I submit not.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is conceivable, is not it, that she was not a principal in the first degree, but in the second degree? It makes no difference.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No, my Lord. It is conceivable of course that the case for the prosecution may be presented either that she was a principal in the second degree or an accessory before the fact, and I want to deal with it upon that basis, because I assume that that is the way it may be put. Of course in law it does not matter as your Lordship has said —-
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: An accessory before the fact – you will correct me if I am wrong, I have not looked it up but I think that is right – in fact becomes a principal in the second degree.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: If present she would become a principal in the second degree; if not present and had taken some previous part in the matter then she would be an accessory before the fact; it is really an academic question, the position of Mrs Thompson. But the fact remains that the prosecution desire to put this letter and other letters of a similar sort over dates which vary from November 1921 until August, I think I am right in saying, of 1922. They put those letters before the jury for purposes not of showing that something which Mrs Thompson did constituted murder but for the purpose of proving as they suggest that she was guilty of murder at all. These letters in my submission to your Lordship are the only evidence of murder (if they were evidence) as against Mrs Thompson at all. The whole of the rest of the evidence relating to that night of the 3rd October and the early morning of the 4th October is absolutely consistent with Mrs Thompson having been taken by surprise in the attack which was made upon her husband and knowing nothing whatever about it at all. My Lord, I do not want to repeat what I have put before your Lordship, but to put it in a nutshell again it is this: If the prosecution can show some act by Mrs Thompson which has to have light thrown upon it to show whether or not it is an innocent act or a guilty act, then those letters might be admissible, but before they become admissible they have got to show some such intent, and in my submission to your Lordship the writing of those letters months before October is too distant from the date of the alleged crime, and the writing of them upon those dates, April, May, June, July and August cannot be said to be evidence as to what Mrs Thompson was doing upon October 3rd. My Lord, I do not think I can usefully occupy your Lordship’s time in amplifying that objection, and I am purposely not drawing your Lordship’s attention again to many cases on the subject I know your Lordship is well aware of. I have got a report of King & Armstrong here.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You will recollect we had as very long consultation about it; I think I studied that case very carefully.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: On behalf of Bywaters I also wish to object .
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There are some letters written by him.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Yes, my Lord, I do not mind those; there are only three letters written by Bywaters, and I have no objections to their admissibility.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is out of the way.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: On the subject that the letters written by Mrs Thompson which were found in the possession of Bywaters ought not to be admitted in evidence in this case, my grounds for making the submission are quite shortly these: The fact that they were in his possession is of course no answer by the prosecution until the prosecution can show that the contents of those letters really are relevant to the issue which is before the jury.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is clear.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Now, my Lord, I do not suppose it is going to be suggested that they are being put in on the question of identity. Your lordship will remember the decision in Thompson in the House of Lords. I do not suggest that is the ground on which it is suggested because there is no question of identity; therefore the only possible ground on which they can be admitted is on the ground of felonious intent. Now, my Lord, on that, although prima facie they may be admissible, it is entirely in the discretion of your Lordship, and in my submission the mere fact —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is your contention at present that they are not evidence against your client, or not evidence at all?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: No, my Lord, they are not evidence against my client or at all because the effect of those letters, the letters written by Mrs Thompson in January to May of this year, is too remote for there to be any connection or nexus as is often found between what is said in those letters and the assault on the deceased man in the early morning of 4th October. That is the ground on which I make my submission. Whatever interpretation may be put on those letters they are too remote and there is no connection whatsoever between what is said in those letters and what actually on October 4th to make them relevant to the issue of felonious intent on October 4th.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Of course I have not had the advantage of your opinion; you had better indicate your view on the matter to me.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My learned friend, Sir H. Curtis-Bennett, on behalf of Mrs Thompson has taken two objections as I understand it. One of them is that the letters are not admissible because they are not evidence against his client; and the second objection is one which I should have thought was more for the jury than your Lordship as to their weight.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is for the jury.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The question is, are they admissible?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: First of all, are they admissible against the lady?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As regards Mrs Thompson, I submit they arc admissible because she is being charged as a principal in the second degree, and they are admissible to show that she gave the incitement without which we say the murder would not have been committed and that is the way in which she is brought into the case. She is indicted, as the law permits, as a principal in the murder although she did not strike the blow. The crime is one where one hand struck the blow, and we want to show by these letters that her mind conceived it and incited it, and the evidence of that is the letters that Mrs Thompson wrote to the man who struck the blow. My Lord, the case of the King v. Armstrong is, as your Lordship said, a very different case indeed. There it was a question as to whether letters or evidence which showed a crime against B had been contemplated was in any way evidence against A. and it was said that a certain foundation ought to be laid before you could bring evidence of the other matters. That is not the case here. Those letters are evidence of the particular crime which is charged, namely, that she prompted the crime and incited the crime, and she is therefore a principal in the second degree. That is as against Mrs Thompson. As against Bywaters the letters are found in his possession; they are evidence of motive.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I want to know first of all you say they are evidence of motive; you will prove that he received them. Assuming they are admissible against her they may be admissible in the case subject to you pointing out whether they are evidence against her. You say they are evidence against her; on what ground ?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I say they are evidence against her because he received them; it is then a question of weight subject to your Lordship’s direction as to whether we ought to attach any weight to them, but it is certain he received them and that he kept them ; it is evidence of motive and intention, and the letters may be necessary, and indeed in this case are necessary.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Shorty you say they are evidence both of motive and intention – intention in the blow.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They are evidence both of motive and intention. As your Lordship will see from a portion of the statement which Bywaters made this was a struggle in which the blow which was delivered was not intended from the first. These letters are evidence of intention and motive.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I think they are evidence of intention and motive. It is a very difficult question.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I submit they are admissible as evidence of the motive sand intention of Bywaters.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Just one word I should like to say if I may in answer to the Solicitor-General. As I understand, the reason given for the admissibility of this evidence is that these letters show a direct incitement to this crime. Now, my Lord, the letters may upon the face of them show incitement to the crime of either poisoning or destroying Mr Thompson by means of giving him glass. In my submission, there must be some nexus between those letters and what they contain and the killing as it took place. The killing which is alleged to have been murder took place by a stab as is alleged by Bywaters on Mr Thompson. Now where is the connection between that act of murder and these letters which are written months beforehand? In my submission, there is no nexus between them at all, and the proper way to deal with these letters is to deal with them under an indictment which actually charges a direct incitement, to use my friend’s words, to murder. Upon that indictment clearly admissible; upon this indictment, in my submission, not.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a new point my friend has taken. I did not appreciate that he put the point in that way. May I just read a passage in Foster’s Crown Cases which, as your Lordship knows, is a great authority where this very case is put. This is on accessories before and after: “If the principal in substance “etc (reading to the words) “and that has been effected”.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: So many authorities I think merely point out the obvious. I think these letters, letters such as the ones to which Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett referred are admissible as evidence of intention and evidence of motive, and I shall admit them. Objection can be taken in the proper way when they come up. You may take I that the objection is taken, recorded and ruled. Only one other matter. I do not think you can contest the letters showing the affectionate relations between the parties are not evidence of motive in so far as they show affection.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: The letters as I have pointed out contain both.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You cannot object to them in that way. [?]
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I am objecting to them on that ground.
(The jury returned into Court).
The Solicitor-General opened the case on behalf of the prosecution.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL [source = Notable British Trials 1923]: May it please your Lordship, members of the jury – on 4th October, a little after midnight, Percy Thompson was stabbed to death on his way home from Ilford station, near which he lived. He was in a dark part of a road, not over-well lit at the best of times, when he was struck, first of all, apparently, from behind, and then in front, by some assailant. The only person present was his wife, Mrs Thompson, who is now in the dock. She is charged with Bywaters, who is said by the Prosecution to have been the assailant, with the murder of Percy Thompson. You will be able to distinguish as to the relevancy of the evidence as between Bywaters and Mrs Thompson. I give you that warning before I come to the facts in order that you may the more closely, if possible, follow the evidence which I shall open, and which shall be given. I ask you to dismiss from your minds any suggestions that you may have heard about the case in other places.
The deceased man, Percy Thompson, aged thirty-two, was a shipping clerk, and had been engaged with the same firm for twelve or thirteen years. He married in January, 1915, Miss Graydon, whose parents were living at Manor Park. There are no children of the marriage. Mr and Mrs Thompson lived at two or three different places after their marriage, and at the time of the incident that I am going to refer to they were residing at 41 Kensington Gardens, Ilford, which they had bought in July, 1920. Mrs Lester, who had occupied the house previously, continued to live there as a lodger. Mrs Thompson was a little younger than her husband – she is twenty-eight years old now – and, perhaps because there were no children, or for other reasons, she was carrying on her employment with a firm of wholesale milliners in Aldersgate Street, being book-keeper and manageress for the firm, and a capable and industrious servant.
The prisoner Bywaters is only twenty years of age. He was engaged for some time in the service of the P. & O. Company on the “Morea ” as a laundry steward, and his employment necessitated his absence from England for considerable periods. When in this country he lived with his mother, Mrs Bywaters, who at one time resided in Manor Park. At the time of the incident with which we are concerned his mother had removed to Upper Norwood. Bywaters, whose ship came to Tilbury Dock, found it more convenient to live with the Graydons at Manor Park, and in that way, no doubt, he became acquainted with Mrs Thompson. He had also been at school with the Graydons. The acquaintance of Bywaters with the Thompsons became more intimate after a certain date in 1922. In June of that year he accompanied them on a holiday to Shanklin, in the Isle of Wight. He returned with them to their house at Ilford, and continued to stay with them until some date in August, when an incident happened which made him desire to leave, and Mr Thompson to direct that he should leave the house. It appeared that the relations between Mr and Mrs Thompson, formerly happy, had become less happy, and there was a quarrel between them which resulted in Bywaters leaving their house. On 21st September Bywaters left in his ship, returning in the autumn and departing again in November. About this time there were a number of letters written by Mrs Thompson to Bywaters, the origin of which may have been the holiday in 1921. I say that because throughout these letters there is a constant return to a certain date – 27th June, 1921 – mentioned by Mrs Thompson as a date which marked a crisis or change in the relations between her and Bywaters. Whether that was the origin of what happened afterwards or not is not necessary for you to decide. The fact of importance for the moment is that during his absence there was a passionate and ardent correspondence between these two persons which shewed that they were engaged, or intended to engage, in an intrigue. Of course, Mrs Thompson still lived with her husband, but the letters, as I have said, were of a passionate nature. All these letters were found in the possession of Bywaters by the police, and taken from his pocket or from his room where he lived with his mother on the day or day after the murder, or found in a “ditty box” on the ship. There is one letter which I wish to read. It bears no date, and it refers to one incident in connection with racing which enables the Prosecution to fix an approximate date. It appears to have been written to Bywaters when he was some distance from the United Kingdom. It was written, as the Prosecution know from the racing incident referred to, after the running of the November Handicap, which was on 26th November, 1921, and the internal evidence letter shews that it was written before Christmas. In that letter (exhibit 27) there appears the following : —
‘It is the man who has no right, who generally comforts the woman who has wrongs.’ This is also right darlint isn’t it? as things are, but darlint, it’s not always going to be is it ? You will have the right soon won’t you? Say yes.
There is a more significant passage in the letter, the first of many such, indicative of the intention or desire on the part of the writer to take active measures. It is for you, members of the jury, to say what this passage means —
The time goes slowly enough in all conscience – I don’t seem to care who spends the money, as long as it helps me to dance through the hours. I had the wrong Porridge to-day, but I dont suppose it will matter, I dont seem to care much either way. You’ll probably say I’m careless and I admit I am, but I dont care – do you?
The unexpectedness of the passage, the inappropriateness of that passage as it stands, is startling. It will be for you to say whether the line of thought that was in Mrs Thompson’s mind was that the existence of her husband was a bar to the happiness she thought she could attain.
I turn now to a letter of 3rd January (exhibit 13), in which Mrs Thompson says —
Immediately I have received a second letter, I have destroyed the first and when I got the third I destroyed the second and so on, now the only one I have is the “Dear Edie ” one written to 41.
Let me here explain that 41 is the number of the house in Kensington Gardens, Ilford, where Mrs Thompson lived. I should add that she sometimes received letters at Aldersgate Street.
The only one I have is the ‘ Dear Edie’ one written to 41, which I am going to keep. It may be useful, who knows? …. I’ve surrendered to him unconditionally now – do you understand me? I think it the best way to disarm any suspicion, in fact he has several times asked me if I am happy now, and I’ve said ‘ Yes quite ’ but you know that’s not the truth, dont you.
When she says “surrendered to him” she is undoubtedly referring to her husband. In another part of the letter she says, “You won’t always be ‘the man with no right’, will you – tell me you won’t.” Some of the passages are indicative of nothing more than guilty passion between the parties, but the letters are important when you come to decide the question as to whether Mrs Thompson had any reason to get rid of her husband.
Bywaters was at home on 7th January, and left again on the 20th. While he was at home no letters, so far as is known, passed between the parties. Soon after he left the letters began again. I read now from the letter of 10th February (exhibit 15) —
Darlint – You must do something this time – I’m not really impatient – but, opportunities come and go by– they have to – because I’m helpless and I think and think and think – perhaps – it will never come again . . . On Wednesday we had words – in bed – Oh you know darlint – over that same old subject and he said – it was all through you I’d altered . . . About 2 a.m. he woke me up and asked for water as he felt ill. I got it for him and asked him what the matter was and this is what he told me – whether its the truth I dont know or whether he did it to frighten me, anyway it didn’t. He said – someone he knows in town (not the man I previously told you about) had given him a prescription for a draught for insomnia and he’d had it made up and taken it and it made him ill. He certainly looked ill and his eyes were glassy. I’ve hunted for the said prescription everywhere and cant find it and asked him what he had done with it and he said the chemist kept it. I told Avis about the incident only I told her as if it frightened and worried me as I thought perhaps it might be useful at some future time that I had told somebody. What do you think, darlint.
The passage is perhaps dark, but light is thrown on it by a later paragraph, which reads —
It would be so easy darlint – if I had things – I do hope I shall.
One of the features of the case is the number and character of the newspaper cuttings that have been found. They are cuttings of a very great variety.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Sent to Bywaters?
The SOLICITOR- GENERAL – Yes. Along with the letter dated 10th February there was a newspaper cutting referring to the poisoning of a curate and his household by hyoscine. In the same letter there was another newspaper cutting headed “Poisoned chocolates for University Chief. Deadly powder posted to Oxford Chancellor. Ground glass in box.” I ask you to notice the latter phrase. Another letter contained a cutting, “Beautiful Dancer Drugged. Visit to Chinese Restaurant,” giving an account of the poisoning of a woman by cocaine who was suspected of having had cyanide of potassium administered to her. I ask you carefully to note that in her letter of 22nd February (exhibit 16) she writes —
I suppose it isn’t possible for you to send it to me – not at all possible, I do so chafe at wasting time darlint.
What “it ” refers to is entirely for you, and whether it has any significance I leave to your determination. You will distinguish between expressions of devotion and those which appear to indicate an intention to get rid of the husband. That is the letter containing the cutting about the death of a “Beautiful Dancer.”
On 14th March she writes again, exhibit 20 —
I ask you again to think out all the plans and methods for me, I wait and wait so anxiously now – for the time when we’ll be with each other even though it is only once– for ‘ one little hour.’
With this letter there was enclosed a newspaper cutting which had reference to another poisoning case. It will be for you to say what she indicated. In March Bywaters returned to this country and sailed again at the end of the month. The letters then indicated the strength of the desire and a greater determination on the part of Mrs Thompson to take action against her husband. On 31st March, the day Bywaters sailed, when you might expect passion to be at its height, she wrote (exhibit 50) —
After tonight I am going to die . . . not really . . . but put on the mask again darlint until the 26th May– doesn’t it seem years and years away? It does to me and I’ll hope and hope all the time that I’ll never have to wear the mask any more after this time. . . . This time really will be the last you will go away – like things are, won’t it? We said it before darlint I know and we failed . . but there will be no failure this next time darlint, there mustn’t be – I’m telling you – if things are the same again then I am going with you – wherever it is – if its to sea – I am coming too and if it is to nowhere – I’m also coming darlint. You’ll never leave me behind again, never, unless things are different.
In that letter two possibilities are presented. I suggest that the phrase “if things are the same again ” means “if my husband is still alive, and I cannot be with you except by leaving him, I will go with you.” In the other case how were things to be different except by the destruction of her husband’s life?
The next letter is a long and ardent one, and it contains passages of great importance. I refer to the letter of 1st April, exhibit 17, where the following appears: —
Don’t keep this piece. About the Marconigram – do you mean one saying Yes or No, because I shant send it darlint I’m not going to try any more until you come back. I made up my mind about this last Thursday. He was telling his mother etc. the circumstances of my ‘Sunday morning escapade’ and he puts great stress on the fact of the tea tasting bitter ‘as if something had been put in it’ he says. Now I think whatever else I try it in again will still taste bitter – he will recognise it and be more suspicious still and if the quantity is still not successful it will injure any chance I may have of trying when you come home. Do you understand? I thought a lot about what you said of Dan. Darlint, don’t trust him – I don’t mean don’t tell him anything because I know you never would—What I mean is don’t let him be suspicious of you regarding that– because if we were successful in the action – darlint circumstances may afterwards make us want many friends – or helpers and we must have no enemies– or even people that know a little too much. Remember the saying ‘ A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.’ Darlint we’ll have no one to help us in the world now and we mustn’t make enemies unnecessarily. He says – to his people– he fought and fought with himself to keep conscious – ‘ I’ll never die, except naturally – I’m like a cat with nine lives’ he said and detailed to them an occasion when he was young and nearly suffocated by gas fumes. I wish we had not got electric light– it would be easy. I’m going to try the glass again occasionally – when it is safe. I’ve got an electric light globe this time.
In the letter of 24th April, exhibit 18, Mrs Thompson writes —
I used the “light bulb ’ three times, but the third time – he found a piece – so I have given it up- -until you come home.
That is the suggestion carried into effect. You are not being asked to say whether she attempted to poison her husband; all you are asked to consider is whether Mrs Thompson incited Bywaters to kill her husband, and the letters are important from that point of view. They are important to shew that she so worked and preyed on the mind of this young man by her suggestions that, although it was his hand that struck the blow, it was her mind that conceived the crime.
On 1st May she wrote to Bywaters at Port Said, exhibit 19 —
I don’t think we’re failures in other things and we musn’t be in this. We musn’t give up as we said. No, we shall have to wait if we fail again. Darlint, Fate can’t always turn against us and if it is we must fight it – You and I are strong now. We must be stronger. We must learn to be patient. . . . You said it was enough for an elephant. Perhaps it was. But you don’t allow for the taste making only a small quantity to be taken. It sounded like a reproach was it meant to be? Darlint I tried hard – you won’t know how hard – because you weren’t there to see and I can’t tell you all – but I did – I do want you to believe I did for both of us. . . . I was buoyed up with the hope of the “light bulb” and I used a lot – big pieces too – not powdered – and it has no effect – I quite expected to be able to send that cable – but no- nothing has happened from it and now your letter tells me about the bitter taste again. Oh, darlint, I do feel so down and unhappy. Wouldn’t the stuff make small pills coated together with soap and dipped in liquorice powder like Beechams – try while you’re away. Our Boy had to have his thumb operated on because he had a piece of glass in it that’s what made that method again – but I suppose as you say he is not normal. I know I feel I shall never get him to take a sufficient quantity of anything bitter. No I haven’t forgotten the key I told you before. . . . If ever we are lucky enough to be happy darling I’ll love you such a lot. I always shew you how much I love you for all you do for me. . . . All that lying and scheming and subterfuge to obtain one little hour in each day – when by light of nature and our love we should be together the twenty-four in every day.
What effect would letters of this sort have on a young man whose affections she was engaging? On 18th May (exhibit 22) she makes yet another of the almost innumerable suggestions to encompass her husband’s death. This time the suggestion comes from a book that members of the jury may possibly have read, written by Robert Hichens, “Bella Donna.” She quotes the following from it : —
It must be remembered that digitalin is a cumulative poison and that the same dose harmless if taken once, yet frequently repeated, becomes deadly.
The letter goes on – Is it any use?” She refers constantly to this book and the lesson it is to teach to them as a possible method of taking her husband’s life. On 23rd May (exhibit 23) she says —
I’d like you to read “Bella Donna ” first you may learn something from it to help us, then you can read “The Fruitful Vine’’
On 9th June Bywaters went away and did not return until the following September. On 13th June she writes (exhibit 24) about an apparent illness of her husband —
Darlingest Boy – I’m trying very hard – very very hard to B.B.[be brave] I know my pal wants me to. On Thursday – he was on the ottoman at the foot of the bed and said he was dying and wanted to – he had another heart attack – thro me. Darlint I had to laugh at this because I knew it couldn’t be a heart attack. When he saw this had no effect on me– he got up and stormed I said exactly what you told me to and he replied that he knew that’s what I wanted and he wasnt going to give it to me – it would make things far too easy for both of you (meaning you and me).
It may be suggested that there is nothing to shew any want of harmony between Mr and Mrs Thompson except natural quarrels. After reading that passage it does appear that there was a bitter antagonism. There is a postscript to Mrs Thompson’s letter of 4th July (exhibit 26 ) – “Have you studied bichloride of mercury,” which I am told is a deadly poison.” There is another letter in which there is reference to a passage in “Romance ” where she says – * ‘
Then we were pals – this year we seem no further advanced. Why should you not send me something? You still have your own way always. If I do not mind the risk why should you.
There is in that connection a more significant passage in which it appears that she was the dominating influence in the crime. She was 28, and the man was only 20. The letter in question contains the following : —
From then onwards everything has gone well with our lives : Darlint I should not mind if I could feel some day I could make up to you for some of the unhappiness I have cost you – I feel it shall come right but there is no conviction in it, why cannot we see into the future.
I suggest that through the correspondence it becomes clear that it was Mrs Thompson who was urging Bywaters on to commit the crime in some way or other in order to secure the happiness upon which her passion was set. He may have been reluctant or not, but can you, members of the jury, have any doubt after hearing these letters that she was not reluctant? The time comes when apparently she is determined that there shall be a culmination of the whole idea. It appeared that the man was cooling in his affection, or passion, or his readiness to commit the crime. He was approaching this country and in a letter (exhibit 28) she says, “I think I am fearfully disappointed about you not getting in on Friday.” She also refers to it being 109 days since she has seen him. Further on in that letter she says —
Darlingest boy, – I dont quite understand you about “Pals.” You say “Can we be Pals only, Peidi, it will make it easier.” Do you mean for always? because if you do, No, No, a thousand times. We can’t be “pals ” only for always darlint its impossible physically and mentally. … It must be still “the hope of all ” or “the finish of all.” If you still only mean for a certain time and you think it best, darlint it shall be so – I don’t see how it will be easier myself. . . . You sound very despondent when you say about “Time passes and with it some of the pain – Fate ordained our lot to be hard.” Does some of the pain you feel pass with time? Perhaps it does – things seem so much easier to forget with a man – his environment is always different – but with a woman it’s always the same. Darlint my pain gets less and less bearable – it hurts more and more every day, every hour really. . . . No, I don’t think the man who mistook me for ” Romance ” was decent darlint, but I do think he was quite genuine in mistaking me, I don’t think it was a ruse on his part. Yes, darlint you are jealous of him – but I want you to be – he has the right by law to all that you have the right to by nature and love – yes darlint be jealous, so much that you will do something desperate.
Bywaters’ ship arrives at Tilbury on 23rd September, and she sends him a telegram, “Can you meet Peidi Broadway 4 p.m.” That she was not content even then to leave the man alone appears from another newspaper extract dated 20th September, headed ” Chicken Broth death. Rat poison consumed by fowl kills woman.” This was a reference to the death of a woman who was said to have taken poison in chicken broth. There is no doubt that Mrs Thompson and Bywaters did meet on 25th September and the death of Percy Thompson took place on 4th October. They met outside the premises where Mrs Thompson was employed. Bywaters was seen by a Mrs Vellender outside the premises and they were seen afterwards in Fuller’s shop. It seems that on the Sunday or Monday before the crime Mrs Thompson wrote to Bywaters. The letter (exhibit 60) is undated, and it commences —
Darlingest lover of mine, thank you, thank you, oh thank you a thousand times for Friday – it was lovely – it is always lovely to go out with you. And then Saturday – yes I did feel happy . . . All Saturday evening I was thinking about you …. I tried so hard to find a way out of to-night darlingest but he was suspicions and still is– I suppose we must make a study of this deceit for some time longer. I hate it. . . Don’t forget what we talked of in the Tea Room, I’ll still risk and try if you will – we only have 3 ¾ years left darlingest.
That is a rather cryptic reference to a period that Mrs Thompson mentions more than once. She speaks sometimes of four years; then fifteen months have passed, and now she says there are three and three-quarter years. I ask – what did they talk about in the tearoom? I put it that there was a long course of suggestion resulting in a desire to escape from the position, and a fresh suggestion was made in the tearoom. On 2nd October, in the morning, Bywaters was rung up by a woman. Mrs Bywaters answered the telephone and Bywaters was summoned to it. He left the house that morning, and was seen with Mrs Thompson in the afternoon. On 3rd October Bywaters was again rung up on the telephone. He left the house, wearing a grey overcoat, and was seen with Mrs Thompson at Fuller’s between four o’clock and 5.15, at which hour they left the shop together. He spent the evening at the Graydons’ house while Mr and Mrs Thompson went to a theatre with a Mr and Mrs Laxton, Mr Laxton being an uncle of Mrs Thompson. Mr and Mrs Thompson went back to Ilford after the performance. (The Solicitor-General described the circumstances of the attack on Mr Thompson and pointed out that there were no signs of a struggle.) Other theatre-goers were attracted to the spot and heard Mrs Thompson exclaim, “Oh, my God, will you help me? My husband is dying.”
Referring to the occasion when at Ilford police station Mrs Thompson saw Bywaters, the Solicitor-General said – She was much agitated and exclaimed “My God, what can I do? Why did he do it? I did not want him to do it. I must tell the truth. I saw my husband struggling with Freddy Bywaters.” Bywaters at first declared that he knew nothing about the matter, but when told that Mrs Thompson was being charged with him, he said “Why Mrs Thompson? She was not aware of my movements. I met Mr and Mrs Thompson in the road. I said to him, ‘You have got to separate from your wife.’ He said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Yes.’ We struggled, and I took my knife from my pocket. We fought and he got the worst, of it. She must have been spellbound as I never saw her move. The reason I fought Thompson is because he never acted like a man to his wife. I could not go on seeing her live like she did. I did not intend to kill but only to injure him.”
A post-mortem examination shewed that there were practically no traces of any poison. There was a trace of morphine, but the presence of that might be due to other reasons, and it has no significance in the case. Nor was there any trace of glass in the body.
(THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL read the statements by the accused.) I suggest to you, members of the jury, that you will have to consider whether the hand that struck the blow was moved, was incited, to the crime by Mrs Thompson. It is no answer that the whole of the incitement should come from Mrs Thompson. It may be that the passion of the young man may have led him in that direction. There is the undoubted evidence in the letters upon which you can find that there was a preconcerted meeting between Mrs Thompson and Bywaters at the place; but supposing you were not wholly satisfied that there was a conspiracy made to effect the murder at this place and time, if you are satisfied that Mrs Thompson incited the murder and that, incited and directed by her controlling hand, Bywaters committed the murder, then it will be my duty to ask you, after hearing the evidence, to find her who incited and proposed the murder as guilty as Bywaters who committed it. [end of Notable British Trials 1923 text]
[Evidence for the Prosecution]
JOHN AMBROSE HENRY LAXTON Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Your name is John Ambrose Henry Laxton?
LAXTON: Yes.
You live at South Tottenham.?
LAXTON: Correct.
Was the deceased Percy Thompson your nephew by marriage?
LAXTON: Yes.
Did you from time to time meet him and his wife, the prisoner Thompson?
LAXTON: Yes.
On Tuesday, 3rd October, did you meet Mr and Mrs Thompson at the Criterion Theatre?
LAXTON: I did.
Had that theatre party been arranged?
LAXTON: Yes.
Beforehand, and how long beforehand?
LAXTON: Well personally I did not make the arrangement myself, my wife did. I think it was about a week or a fortnight.
And after the performance was over did you and your party leave Mr and Mrs Thompson?
LAXTON: At the Tube Station.
At the Piccadilly Tube Station. About what time was that?
LAXTON: At about a quarter to 11 or 11 o’clock.
Did they go off in the direction of Liverpool Street?
LAXTON: They went down in a different lift to what we did, they were going to Liverpool Street.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I have no questions.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
Had you gone to theatres before with Mr and Mrs Thompson.
LAXTON: Yes.
On many occasions had not you, or several occasions?
LAXTON: Yes.
As far as I could see outwardly, did they appeared to be on good terms?
LAXTON: Yes
Was the party upon the particular evening an ordinary happy theatre party?
LAXTON: Yes.
And when Mr and Mrs Thompson left us at Piccadilly Tube Station did they appear to be upon their normal terms —
LAXTON: Exactly.
The usual terms?
LAXTON: Yes.
ROBERT TAYLOR Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Is your name Robert Taylor?
TAYLOR: Yes.
Are you Police Constable, of the “K” Division?
TAYLOR: Yes.
Are you accustomed to the making of plans?
TAYLOR: Yes
Have you prepared a plan of the neighbourhood of Belgrave Road and Kensington Gardens, Ilford?
TAYLOR: Yes
And is it correct and dawn to scale?
TAYLOR: That is so.
Are there copies for the jury (plans handed to jury). Does the plan consist of two different parts, the upper part, showing a number of streets in the neighbourhood of Belgrave Road and Kensington Gardens and the lower part showing in larger scale a part of Belgrave Road which joins Kensington Gardens in Endsleigh Gardens?
TAYLOR: That is so.
Dealing first of all with the lower part of the plan, would Ilford Station be on your right; Ilford Station would be from the right to the left would it, going along the plan?
TAYLOR: From right to left.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is marked upon the upper part.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Do you show, nearly half-way between Endsleigh Gardens and Kensington Gardens, by dots, the actual scene of the crime?
TAYLOR: That is so, enlarged below.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Where is it?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: It is the dotted line, the scene of the crime.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I cannot find it.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: It is on the lower part of the plan, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Scene of crime, 44 feet. Coming from the station, that would be coming from the right?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Yes, walking along the right-hand side. (To the witness) Still on the lower part, I think the surface of the road is macadam and the pavement ordinary paving stone?
TAYLOR: Yes.
Dealing with Belgrave Road; are the front doors of tho houses looking on to the road?
TAYLOR: No, the entrances to the houses are in Endsleigh Gardens, and Kensington Gardens.
Are there any side entrances there?
TAYLOR: Yes, just a back door.
Do you show, still on the large scale, the lower part of the plan, the street lamps in the neighbourhood?
TAYLOR: Yes, two to the left and right.
They are 50 candle power lamps, are not they — or someone else will prove that. There is one at the corner of Endsleigh Gardens; that is the nearest.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is no lamp on this part at all.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: The nearest is Endsleigh Gardens, is it?
TAYLOR: Yes, the nearest is Endsleigh Gardens.
And the next nearest is Kensington Gardens?
TAYLOR: Yes, Kensington Gardens.
Is the place where the actual killing took place a dark part of the road at night?
TAYLOR: Yes, it is a dark part.
Turning to the upper part of the plan, is there appended a printed list of the distances which you have measured from various points to other points/
TAYLOR: Yes, right at the top corner
Are those distances correct?
TAYLOR: Yes
I do not what to trouble you with many of them, but they are there in case they are wanted to be referred to.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is Shakespeare Crescent?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: That is the home of the Graydons. (To the witness) Is the distance from 221 [231] Shakespeare Crescent to the scene two miles 370 yards?
TAYLOR: Approximately yes.
To the spot you have marked om the plan?
TAYLOR: Yes, that is right.
And the spot you have marked on the plan as the scene of the killing is only about 50 yards from Thompson’s house, is that right?
54 to be correct.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What number is Thompson’s house?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Thompson’s house is No. 41 Kensington Gardens.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Whereabouts is that?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: (To the witness) Does the upper part of the plan show four houses hatched in?
TAYLOR: Yes, five.
Is the top left hand one the Thompsons’?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is No. 41.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: 41 Kensington Gardens, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is the direct way home.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Yes, I understand it would be the direct way from Ilford Station?
TAYLOR: It is the nearest and most direct.
Then, travelling from left to right the next house you have hatched is that Miss Pittard’s house?
TAYLOR: The corner of Endsleigh Gardens.
The next, going to the right, is Webber’s house?
TAYLOR: 59 de Vere Gardens, a corner house again.
The next is Dr Maudsley’s house?
TAYLOR: 62 Courtland Avenue.
And the last is Mr Cleveley’s?
TAYLOR: Yes, 62 Mayfair Avenue.
If any other distances are required, they can be seen from the appended extract at the top of the plan?
TAYLOR: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is Belgrave Road only 8 feet 9 inches across?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: No; I do not follow that. I had better ask him.
TAYLOR: 26 feet, the road.
At the scene of the affair the pavement is 7 feet wide, and the roadway is 26 feet wide; following it down the carriage way it is 8 feet 9 inches?
TAYLOR: It is just a portion or cutting into the pavement to allow the carriages to go through.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Your Lordship sees the pavement on the righthand side is broken.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is a carriage gateway?
TAYLOR: That is right, my Lord.
The road is 26 feet wide?
TAYLOR: Yes, 26 feet wide, my Lord and the pavement 7 feet wide.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
From the Graydons’ house, which is in Shakespeare Crescent, this Belgrave Road, you say, is two miles 370 yards?
TAYLOR: Approximately, yes.
Are you also responsible for the time which is taken to walk it?
TAYLOR: Yes.
You are a pretty fast walker?
TAYLOR: I have been an athlete, but I walked at a reasonable walk.
You walk four miles an hour always?
TAYLOR: Yes, a little over, I should think.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
I am very anxious to get quite clear before the jury the way you come from llford Station to the house of Mr and Mrs Thompson, would be down the Belgrave Road?
TAYLOR: Yes, via York Road; it is the most direct route.
That would be the shortest and best way?
TAYLOR: Absolutely.
It has been said that this spot was particularly dark. I want you just to look at the plan, will you?
TAYLOR: Yes.
Just take from Courtland Avenue to Kensington Gardens. Am I right in saying that those roads are about equidistant apart?
TAYLOR: Yes, the distance is quite moderate.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Courtland Avenue?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: from Courtland Avenue, then there is De Vere Gardens, them Endsleigh Gardens, then Kensington Gardens. The distance between each of those us about the same?
TAYLOR: Yes.
Am I right in saying that taking the lamps there is a lamp at the corner of Courtland Avenue?
TAYLOR: Yes.
And going down Belgrave Road, the next Lamp that you would come to is on the opposite side of De Vere Gardens?
TAYLOR: Yes.
Then taking the next, from that lamp in De Vere Hardens, the next lamp is at the corner of Endsleigh Gardens?
TAYLOR: Yes.
And then from there the next lamp is at the far corner of Kensington Gardens?
TAYLOR: That is so.
There is no difference is there in the lighting of that part of the road at all?
TAYLOR: Oh yes, they vary. You see those lamps on one side of the road are 282 feet apart and on the other 210.
Just apply yourself to what I am putting to you. There is a lamp upon the top side of the plan at the corner of Courtland Avenue and the lamp is upon the bottom side of the plan at De Vere Gardens?
TAYLOR: That is so.
The space between these two lamps, om opposite sides of the road ids exactly the same is it not as the space between the lamp at the top of the plan at Endsleigh Gardens and the lamp at the bottom side of the plan at Kensington Gardens.
TAYLOR: That is so.
Therefore the lighting there is exactly the same?
TAYLOR: Yes, but that would not be between De Vere Gardens and Endsleigh Gardens.
I did not say so, between Courtland Avenue and De Vere Gardens is precisely the same as Endsleigh and Kensington Gardens?
TAYLOR: Yes, I think so.
And I suppose if you go on down the road or go back you find the same all the way along?
TAYLOR: Well, I think they cease there.
And beyond that it is dark, beyond Kensington Gardens?
TAYLOR: Well, it would be.
DORA FINCH PITTARD Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Is you name Dora Finch Pittard?
PITTARD: Yes.
Do you live at 59 Endsleigh Gardens, Ilford?
PITTARD: Yes.
On the night of the 3rd October did you arrive with some friends of yours, Mr and Mrs Cleveley and another lady at Ilford station about midnight?
PITTARD: Yes.
Was it before or after 12 o’clock?
PITTARD: A few minutes before, I should think, I am not sure.
And did you walk in the direction of your home. Did that take you through Belgrave Road?
PITTARD: A part of Belgrave Road.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Had you been coming down from London?
Yes.
What train did you come by?
PITTARD: The 11.30 from Liverpool St.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Were you between the two roads which are called De Vere Gardens, and Endsleigh Gardens, when you saw a woman running towards you?
PITTARD: Yes.
Who was the woman?
PITTARD: I now learn she is Mrs Thompson.
What did she say?
PITTARD: She called “Oh, my God! will you help me, my husband is ill, he is bleeding.”
Did you ask her where he was?
PITTARD: Yes.
What did she say?
PITTARD: On the pavement.
Did she ask you to do anything else?
PITTARD: Yes, if I would take her to a doctor or get a doctor.
And did you then take her to the house of Dr. Maudsley?
PITTARD: Yes.
Where does he live?
PITTARD: At the corner of Courtland Avenue.
And then did you back to Kensington Gardens, Mrs Thompson being just in front of you?
PITTARD: Yes.
Where did Mrs Thompson stop? where did you find a man lying on the pavement?
PITTARD: Between Endsleigh and Kensington Gardens.
Was it light enough to see without artificial light? what did you do in the way of light?
PITTARD: I did not do anything.
Did anybody?
PITTARD: Mr Cleveley was with me and he struck a match.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What was his name?
PITTARD: Mr Cleveley.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Can you say whether the man who was lying on the pavement was dead or not?
PITTARD: I did not know then.
You did not know?
PITTARD: No.
Did Mrs Thompson and you have some conversation; did you ask her some questions?
PITTARD: I asked her what had happened to her husband, and she said that she could not tell me then, she did not know.
Tell us if you can as far as you can remember just what she said.
PITTARD: She said “Oh, don’t ask me, I don’t know. Somebody flew past, and when I turned to speak to him blood was pouring out of his mouth.”
Then the doctor came, did he?
PITTARD: Yes.
What sort of condition was Mrs Thompson in?
PITTARD: She was very agitated and incoherent.
MR WHITELEY: I have no questions, my Lord.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
When you first saw Mrs Thompson she was running hard in your direction.
PITTARD: Yes.
And the first thing that she said directly she saw you walking towards her, was “My God, my God, will you help me, my husband is ill and bleeding”?
PITTARD: Yes.
And then asked about a doctor?
PITTARD: Yes.
It was quite clear to you was it that at that time she was in a hysterical condition?
PITTARD: Yes, she was very agitated.
Very agitated and it was very difficult for you to hear some of her replies, almost — incoherent, you say?
PITTARD: Yes.
It was quite obvious to you that what she wanted was to get help for her husband?
PITTARD: Yes, I suppose so.
PERCY EDWARD CLEVELEY Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREY
Is your name Percy Edward Cleveley?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
Do you live at 62 Mayfair Avenue, Ilford?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
And were you one of the party which included Miss Pittard which arrived at Ilford Station about midnight on the night of the 3rd October?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
While you were walking through Belgrave Road did you see some woman there?
CLEVELEY: After had left our house we met this woman between Endsleigh Gardens and De Vere Gardens.
Was she walking or running?
CLEVELEY: Well. She seemed to come out of the darkness, as it were.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You do not know?
CLEVELEY: I could not say.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: And was the woman the prisoner, Mrs Thompson?
CLEVELEY: Well, I could not swear to it, because it was dark.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is no doubt it was?
CLEVELEY: I understand it was.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: What did she say; what was the first thing she said?
CLEVELEY: Well, in the exact words I could not say for sure, but she spoke about her husband having fallen down and she wanted help and he was ill, and asked where we could find a doctor.
Did you go with Miss Pittard to Dr Maudsley’s house to find him?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
And going back again did you find the deceased on the pavement or not?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
Was he lying down or sitting pup?
CLEVELEY: He was lying with his back propped up against the wall.
CLEVELEY: Did Mrs Thompson tell you at all how the thing had happened?
CLEVELEY: No.
Just tell us anything that she said about it?
CLEVELEY: I asked her how it had happened and said she could not say.
Is that all she said?
CLEVELEY: “Something brushed past” or “flew past”, or words to that effect, “and he fell down.”
MR WHITELEY: I have no questions, my Lord
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT.
I want you to try and think, you know, exactly what was said. When Mrs Thompson first came up, was not the first thing she said, “Do you know a doctor, do you know a doctor? ”
CLEVELEY: No, I think the first thing she was she asked for help.
Asked for help and then for a doctor?
CLEVELEY: And spoke about a doctor; I could not tell you exactly whether she used the words for a doctor first or last.
I have got before me what you said before the Justices, and I suggest to you that what she first said was “Do you know of a doctor, my husband has fallen down”. Is that right? I am reading from what you swore before the Justices; is that right?
CLEVELEY: She asked for a doctor and she said her husband had fallen down.
And she wanted help?
CLEVELEY: And she wanted help.
Then did you and Miss Pittard and Mrs Thompson go to Dr Maudsley’s, is that right?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
And after you had summoned Dr Maudsley, the three of you returned again to where Mr Thompson was found?
CLEVELEY: That is so, yes.
On the way back from Dr. Maudsley’s, am I right in saying that Mrs Thompson ran in front of you?
CLEVELEY: She ran on in front.
Ran on in front to get back to her husband?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
And when you and Miss Pittard got back you found her attending to her husband?
CLEVELEY: Yes — well, I do not know what she was doing, but she was kneeling down with him.
Anyhow she was with her husband. Now when you asked her what had happened, was she in a very agitated condition?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
That was quite clear, was ir not?
CLEVELEY: She was very and agitated.
Hysterical and incoherent in her statements?
CLEVELEY: Yes, she was certainly very excited and agitated.
I am using the words which you used before the Justices; I am not trying to catch you over it. Do you agree, as you said before the Justices “Mrs Thompson was hysterical and incoherent in her statements?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
And then she said this to you did she not, when you asked her how did it happen, “Someone flew past and he fell down”?
CLEVELEY: Yes.
JOHN WEBBER
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Is your name John Webber?
WEBBER: Yes.
Do you live at 59 De Vere Gardens, Ilford.
WEBBER: Yes.
You are a Sales Manager?
WEBBER: Yes.
In the early morning of the 4th October were you roused by something?
WEBBER: Not roused, I was just about to retire when I heard —
Was your attention attracted by something?
WEBBER: Yes.
What time was it.?
WEBBER: About 12.30.
What did you hear?
WEBBER: I heard a woman’s voice saying “Oh, don’t, oh, don’t”, in a most piteous manner.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: In order that the jury may follow, this house is marked on the plan. It is the corner of Endsleigh Gardens, and Belgrave Road; it would be in fact 30 or 40 yards [sic: marginal note reads: ‘No, Corner of De Vere Gardens and Belgravre Road about 120 yards away!] from the occurrence.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is right the other side on the lower part, it would be right away here (indicating).
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Yes, on the lower plan it would be the last thing on the right. (To the witness) You heard a woman then scream “Oh don’t, oh don’t”. What did you do?
WEBBER: On hearing that I went out into the street, to the middle of the road, and there I looked and listened for a moment, then I saw three figures, two ladies and a gentleman, one lady running in front of the other lady and gentleman.
Coming towards you or going away?
WEBBER: Coming towards me; so I stepped on the pavement.
Do you know Dr Maudsley’s house?
WEBBER: Yes.
Those persons then would be coming in the direction of Dr Maudsley’s house?
WEBBER: Coming from Dr Maudsley’s house.
Yes.
WEBBER: They passed me, and I do not think they saw me; they passed me; I was close to the wall; close to the pillar of the house. I walked again to the centre of the road and watched them going down. I saw the shadows pass one lamp and as they did not pass another I imagined they had stopped, and then I saw someone strike a light, a match.
You saw a match struck?
WEBBER: Yes.
In fact was it dark?
WEBBER: It was fairly dark.
You saw a match struck. Did you then go up to where it was?
WEBBER: Then I went indoors and got my hat.
Did you then go up to the place where you seen the match struck?
WEBBER: Yes.
And did you find a man on the pavement; was he sitting?
WEBBER: Yes.
How was he?
WEBBER: In a sitting posture against the wall.
And was a woman there?
WEBBER: Mrs Thompson was there; whom I know to be Mrs Thompson.
Did you speak to her?
WEBBER: Yes, I asked her if the man had had a fall: she said she did not know. I then asked if I could be of any assistance to him and she said “Don’t touch him, don’t touch him, a lady and a gentleman have gone off for a doctor”.
Was she alone with him at that moment?
WEBBER: She was alone at that moment with him.
And after that did some people come up?
WEBBER: After that Doctor Maudsley came with Miss Pittard and Mr Cleveley.
You heard the doctor speak to her, did you? Did you help the doctor?
Yes, I helped him to undress the man.
Did you hear any conversation between the doctor and Mrs Thompson?
WEBBER: Yes, I heard the doctor ask if he had been ill, and where they had come from. She told him that they had come from the Criterion Theatre; they had been to the Criterion Theatre in town and in answer to the question as to whether he had been ill she said no.
He had not been ill?
WEBBER: He not ben ill.
MR WHITELEY: I have no questions.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
I am not sure whether I caught you correctly or not. Did you say that when you heard a woman calling out “Oh don’t, oh don’t”, that was in a piteous voice?
WEBBER: Yes.
A piteous tone of voice – pleadingly.
WEBBER: Are you able to identify that voice?
WEBBER: Yes, I was able to identify the voice.
Whose voice was it?
WEBBER: Mrs Thompson’s.
You have no doubt that?
WEBBER: I have no doubt whatever about it.
When you saw the three people coming towards you, the one in the front was Mrs Thompson, was it not?
WEBBER: Yes.
Was she sobbing?
WEBBER: Yes, sobbing as she was running.
And running hard?
WEBBER: Yes, running hard.
And running of course back to where her husband was lying?
WEBBER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: This witness saw her when they were coming back from calling the doctor.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: There was an interval. To make it clear, what I think you said was, about three minutes between hearing the woman —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He has not said it yet, you know.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: He did say it at the police court. (To the witness) Is that correct or not?
WEBBER: Yes.
An interval of about three minutes?
WEBBER: I said from three to five minutes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Some time after you heard the voice then two or three minutes before you came?
WEBBER: Yes my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Three to five minutes before you came out.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Three to five minutes before [sic: “between” is correctly superscripted longhand] hearing the first call by the woman and coming out and seeing the people coming towards you, is that right?
WEBBER: Yes.
When you yourself went across to where Mr Thompson was sitting on the pavement did you find that Mrs Thompson was attending to him by his side?
WEBBER: She was there, evidently waiting for some assistance.
Evidently waiting for assistance?
WEBBER: Yes.
Now I just want to get this clear if I can. Did you say to her “Has he had a fall”?
WEBBER: Yes.
And was this her answer, ”Yes — no — I do not know”?
WEBBER: Yes.
And it was quite evident, was it not, that she was in a very agitated state at that time?
WEBBER: I should say she was almost hysterical at the time
NOEL MAUDSLEY Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Is your name Noel Maudsley?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
Do you live at 62 Courtland Avenue, Ilford?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
That is at the corner is it of Belgrave Road?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
Were you called up in the early morning of 4th October by the two witnesses we have had here today, Miss Pittard and Mr Cleveley?
MAUDSLEY: No, Miss Pittard only.
And did you go to a spot about half-way between Kensington Gardens and Endsleigh Gardens?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
Did you there see a man lying on the pavement?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
Was Mrs Thompson there at the time?
MAUDSLEY: Yes, standing by his side.
Did you strike a match and made an examination of that man who was lying there?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
Was he at that time dead?
MAUDSLEY: Yes. I first examined his pulse and he was dead – quite.
He was dead, was he?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
How long do you think elapsed from the time that you were first called to the time you actually got to the body?
MAUDSLEY: I should think about five or eight minutes.
Five to eight minutes?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
And about how long had the man been dead when you examined him?
MAUDSLEY: Well, I should say ten minutes.
Somewhere about ten minutes?
MAUDSLEY: Somewhere about ten minutes.
I want to ask you about Mrs Thompson, who was there; in what condition was she?
MAUDSLEY: Confused condition, hysterical, and agitated.
Did you speak to her?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
What did you say?
MAUDSLEY: I asked her if her husband had been taken ill coming home in the train or coming along the road and she said “no”. I asked her if any other doctor had been attending him in Ilford for an illness and she said he had often complained but would never go to a doctor.
Did you tell her that her husband was dead?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
Did she make any observation to that?
MAUDSLEY: She said why had not I come sooner and save him.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “Why did you not come sooner”.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I think he added “and save him”, did you say that?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: At that time, in the darkness, did you notice any wounds?
MAUDSLEY: Well, I was called out for a cut head, in the first place, but I saw no wounds, because the blood had coagulated. There were no bleeding points to observe, but the blood was welling out of his mouth.
You did see that?
MAUDSLEY: I did see that, yes.
Did you give any directions for the police to be sent for?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
Did you see any indications of a struggle having taken place?
MAUDSLEY: No indications of a struggle whatever.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY.
Of course you came up after it was all over?
MAUDSLEY: Yes.
And may I take it that you never directed your attention at all to the wounds from which this man was suffering
MAUDSLEY: Quite so.
You never made any examination at all?
MAUDSLEY: I made no examination.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No questions, my Lord.
WALTER GRIMES Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Your name is Walter Grimes, and you are a Sergeant of the” K” Division of the Metropolitan Police?
GRIMES: Yes.
In the early morning of the 4th October did you go to the house of Mrs Thompson to which she had been taken?
GRIMES: I did, yes.
About what time in the morning?
GRIMES: About 3 am.
What did you say to her?
GRIMES: I asked her if she could just explain to me what had happened on the road home from the station and she said “I don’t know, I cannot say, I only know”, she said, “that my husband suddenly dropped down and screamed out “oh”. I then rushed across the road and saw a lady and gentleman and asked them if they would help me and they went with me to the doctor”.
GRIMES: Did you put the specific question to her about a knife?
GRIMES: Yes, that was later on in the morning.
What did you say to her?
GRIMES: I asked her if she was carrying a knife in her handbag at the time
GRIMES: And she said?
GRIMES: She replied “No.”
Then what did you ask her?
GRIMES: I then asked her if she or her husband saw or spoke to any person when they were coming through Belgrave Road. She replied, “No, I did not notice anyone.”
MR WHITELEY: No questions.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
Was this conversation with Mrs Thompson at about 3 o’clock in the morning?
GRIMES: Yes.
3 o’clock in the early morning?
GRIMES: Yes.
And you were with Sergeant Mew, were you not?
GRIMES: That is so.
Do you agree that at 3 o’clock in the morning Mrs Thompson appeared to be very distressed and inclined to be hysterical?
GRIMES: Oh yes, yes.
I just want to remind you, is not this what she said to you at that time. Did not Sergeant Mew say “Can you account for the cuts on your husband’s neck”? I am looking at Sergeant Mew’s evidence, at page 10; — and did Mrs Thompson say “No. We were walking along, my husband said, ‘Oh!’. I said, ‘Bear up’, thinking he had one of his attacks. He then fell on me and walked a little further; he then fell up against the wall”.
“And then on to the ground”?
GRIMES: That is the reply she made to Sergeant Mew when he asked her the question.
You were present.
GRIMES: I was present, yes.
And then next to that was the question put about the knife?
GRIMES: Yes, that is so. Sergeant Mew asked her if f her husband carried a knife first.
That is right; I want to get the order of events. First of all she was asked about the incident itself and she gave the answer which I have read to you?
GRIMES: That is so, yes.
Then either you or Sergeant Mew said “Did he have a knife?”
GRIMES: That is so; that is right.
SERGEANT WALTER MEW Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Your name is Walter Mew, and you are sergeant of Police. Did you go to Belgrave Road a little after 1 o’clock in the early morning of the 4th October?
MEW: Yes.
Did you instruct some other officers to take the body of the deceased to the mortuary?
MEW: Yes.
At that time was Mrs Thompson there?
MEW: Yes.
Quite close by?
MEW: Yes.
And after the body had been removed did you go with her to her home, 41 Kensington Gardens?
MEW: Yes.
Quite close by?
MEW: Yes.
On the way there did she say something to you?
MEW: Yes.
What was it?
MEW: She said “Will he come back”.
And you said?
MEW: I replied “Yes”. She then said “They will blame me for this”.
Did you then go on other business; I need not trouble you with the details?
MEW: Yes.
And see Mrs Thompson again?
MEW: Yes.
And at 3 o’clock that same morning did you return to 41 Kensington Gardens?
MEW: Yes.
And see Mrs Thompson again?
MEW: Yes.
What did you say to her then?
MEW: I asked her “Can you account for the cuts on your husband’s neck”, she replied, “No, we were walking along and my husband said ‘Oh’, I said, ‘Bear up’, thinking he had one of his attacks. He then fell on me, and walked a little further. He then fell up against the wall, and then on to the ground”. I said to her “Did he have a knife”, and she replied “No, I did not see a knife or anything” .
Did you notice that her coat and her clothes and face had signs of blood on them?
MEW: Yes.
It would be natural if she had been holding up her husband or anybody else who was bleeding?
MEW: That is so, yes.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
You went to the mortuary to which the body was taken?
MEW: Yes.
And you saw the clothes taken off the deceased man’s body.
MEW: Yes.
What was he wearing?
MEW: A blue suit.
A blue suit?
MEW: Yes.
Was there an overcoat?
MEW: No — I am not quite sure — I think not.
I suggest to you there was not any overcoat?
MEW: No, there was not any overcoat.
The clothes are here?
MEW: I believe so.
It was a blue suit, was it, a coat, jacket, waistcoat and trousers?
MEW: Yes.
Did you notice whether in the trousers there was a hip pocket?
MEW: I cannot say whether there was a hip pocket or not.
They are here, we can see them; the trousers are here?
MEW: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Let us have them; I do not know if there us anything in it.
MR WHITELEY: My Lord, there is a very great deal in it.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Then we had better have the trousers; it is quite simple.
MR WHITELEY: Just look at those (handed).
MEW: Yes, those are the trousers.
Is there a hip pocket there?
MEW: Yes, there is a hip pocket.
Just show the jury where it is. Is it on the righthand side?
MEW: On the righthand side, yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is the size of it; put your hand in it. (Witness did so)
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
Was the upper part of Mr Thompson’s clothing saturated with blood?
MEW: Yes.
And was the blood which you saw on the clothes of Mrs Thompson consistent with her having assisted her husband and having propped him up against the wall in the position in which he was found?
MEW: Yes.
She would have got that blood from his clothes?
MEW: That is so, yes
And both at the time when you had the first conversation with her, when she said “Will he come back” — you remember that?
MEW: Yes.
And the latter conversation at 3 o’clock; was she in as very distressed condition?
MEW: She was very distressed.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I am afraid I do not understand the question. Who is “he” — “will he come back”.
MEW: At the time, my Lord, I thought she referred to her husband.
Would you think she was referring to her husband?
MEW: I think she was referring to her husband.
You mean would they bring the body back?
MEW: Yes
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I am not sure whether she knew he was dead?
MEW: I do not think she realised at the time that he was dead.
You do not think she realised at that time that he was dead?
MEW: That is so.
And so she was saying “Will he come back?”
MEW: Yes that is so.
What time was that when you say you do no think she realised he was dead?
MEW: That would be about 1.10. I arrived at 1..5 and that would be about five minutes after.
Then the second conversation was at 3 o’clock.
MEW: Three o’clock, yes.
And she was still in the same condition herself then?
MEW: Yes.
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Your name is Richard Halliday Thompson and you live at 49 Seymour Gardens, Ilford?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: I do.
And was the deceased, Percy Thompson your brother?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: He was.
Was he thirty-two years of age at the time of his death?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes
When did you last see him alive?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: On the night before the tragedy.
That would the night of 2nd October?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: That is right.
At that time was his health apparently good?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Quite.
I suppose you know Mrs Thompson, his wife?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes, very well.
Had they been living at 41 Kensington Gardens Ilford for something over two years?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: That is quite right.
Now were you called in the early morning of the 4th October to go to No. 41 Kensington Gardens?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: I was.
And what time did you get there?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Between quarter to two and two o’clock.
In the early morning?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes.
Had you been told something of what happened?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Nothing in connection with the tragedy; I was told that my brother had passed away — had had a seizure.
You had been told your brother was dead?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes.
And did you see your sister-in-law there?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: I did.
Just tell us what you said and what she answered.
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: I asked her if she could tell me or give me a rough idea of what happened, and how my brother met with his death. She stated that he was walking along and suddenly came over queer, fell against that wall and slid down with the remark “OO- er”, or some remark like that, and it was the last he ever said.
Did she say whether her husband had complained of anything?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: She told me he had complained of pains in his leg.
At the time when he fell?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: No, before that, on the way from the station.
Yes, and what did she tell you about what she had done?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: She told me that she asked him what was the matter and he did not answer and she then went to the nearest doctor she could find, which was not a very great distance away and on her way up there she met a lady and gentleman and she asked them to obtain assistance for her. I understood then that they went with her to the doctor’s and he was rather a long time coming and she complained about it, and she brought the doctor back and when he arrived her husband was dead; and I understood her to say that the doctor said he had died from haemorrhage.
You understood her to say that the doctor said he had died from a haemorrhage?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you ask her any other question?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Well, it was a most difficult question to ask her, I mean to say —
What I want to know us did you ask her any other question?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: No, I do not think I did.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Your sister-in-law was a Miss Graydon?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you know the family of Graydons at all?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Well, fairly well, I would not say exactly the family, I have known her for many years.
Have you visited there?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Occasionally, yes.
They live at 241 Shakespeare Crescent?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: At 231 Shakespeare Crescent.
In Manor Park?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: That is right.
There is a Mr and Mrs Graydon, and two brothers and a sister?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Three brothers and one sister.
And did your brother and his wife frequently visited the Graydons?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: I think they did, yes.
Did they visit there at least once a week?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes.
Would it usually be on Friday?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes, I think you will find it was.
And you have been there, have you?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Well, not with them.
Have you been there when Bywaters was there?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: No, not at the Graydons’ house, no.
Not at the Graydons’ house; you have never met him there?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Not at the Graydons’ house. No. at 231 Shakespeare Crescent. I think they usually went there on a Friday. I have never met the prisoner Bywaters at the Graydons’ house.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
I want to ask you a question or two about your brother’s health. He joined did not he the London Scottish in 1916?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: That would be the date, yes.
And do you know that after a few months he was discharged; do you know that?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes, he was said to be totally unfit for service?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: That is right, yes.
Did you know that was owing to heart trouble?
RICHARD HALLIDAY THOMPSON: Yes, it was.
CYRIL GEAL Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Is your name Cyril Geal and are you a Police Constable.
GEAL: Yes.
Did you go to Belgrave Road in the early morning of 4thOctober?
GEAL: Yes.
And with the assistance of another constable did you take the body of the deceased to the Ilford Mortuary?
GEAL: Yes.
Did you assist to undress the body?
GEAL: I did.
You found a number of wounds, which will be spoken to by the doctor?
GEAL: Yes.
Did you find any knife in the possession of the deceased man?
GEAL: I did not.
Or any other weapon?
GEAL: No.
And except for the cuts in the clothing caused by a knife did you find that the clothing had been torn at all.
GEAL: No.
MR WHITELEY: I have no questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I have no question
PERCY JAMES DROUGHT Sworn
EXAMINED BY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
You are a Divisional Surgeon to the Ilford Police Division.
DROUGHT: I am, yes.
On the 5th October did you make, by direction of the Coroner, a post-mortem examination of the body of Percy Thompson at the Ilford Mortuary?
DROUGHT: I did.
Will you tell my Lord and the jury what you found on the body?
DROUGHT: On the body on the left side below the ribs, four slight cuts on the skin, just there (indicating).
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Just show us. On the left, in front or behind?
DROUGHT: On the front.
Just below the ribs?
DROUGHT: Yes.
Put your finger on it and show the jury.
DROUGHT: The four cuts were there. (indicating)
They had gone through the clothing, then?
DROUGHT: They entered here, just over the pocket and had gone through all the clothing.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Had they made marks on his body?
DROUGHT: These were the four cuts on the skin.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Skin cuts?
DROUGHT: Yes.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They had gone through his clothes and cut the skin?
DROUGHT: Yes. On the front of the chin two slight cuts parallel to one another.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The best way is to show us. You mean right in the middle of the chin.
DROUGHT: Right in the centre of the chin, two slight cuts on the right side of the lower jaw, one slight cut on the inner side of the right arm, that is at the elbow, there was a cut 3 ¼ inches long.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: May we see where that was?
DROUGHT: It ran through the skin; it was an “S’ shaped cut, just on the bend of the elbow. If the arm had been straight it would have been a straight cut, but apparently it was up like that (demonstrating), and when the arm is extended it makes an “S”.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Was that a deep cut or superficial?
DROUGHT: Nearly through the whole of the skin.
What was the next you found?
DROUGHT: One stab in the back of the neck, two inches deep and 11/4 inches wide.
Whereabouts?
DROUGHT: The very centre of the neck, right in the back here; the back, in the centre.
Had that gone through the clothing?
DROUGHT: No, that was above the clothing.
Yes, go on?
DROUGHT: One stab at the back of the neck slightly to the right, 21/2 inches deep and 11/2 inches wide, passing upwards towards the right ear. It ernt in below, low down the neck and passed upwards.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Those were two separate stabs?
DROUGHT: Two separate stabs.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That also was above the clothing?
DROUGHT: Yes, it went in here (indicating); there was one stab on the right side of the throat in the centre of the neck here.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Where is that?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Do it again?
DROUGHT: One stab in the centre of the neck one inch wide, and about 2 ½ inches deep.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: A stab, and not a slash, was it?
DROUGHT: That was a stab. That stab open up the gullet; penetrated down and opened the gullet.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: With what result?
DROUGHT: The result of that stab was there was about half a pint of blood in the stomach.
What did that come from?
DROUGHT: That came from the artery in the neck, the carotid artery.
Which had been severed by a stab?
DROUGHT: Which had been severed by a stab, yes.
What degree of force would have been necessary to make those wounds?
DROUGHT: The wounds at the back and round the neck required a considerable force, I should say. Those at the front were superficial and did not require so much force.
Would you look at that weapon? (Same handed to Witness).
DROUGHT: That is the same weapon.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Show it to the jury (Same handed to the jury)
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Could the wounds which you saw be inflicted by that weapon?
DROUGHT: They could.
Are you able to form an opinion as to where the assailant was when the blows were struck?
DROUGHT: I came to the conclusion from the bloodstains that he was on the footpath.
I meant, first of all, where was the assailant in relation to the man who was struck?
DROUGHT: Well, with regard to the slight wound at the front the assailant must have been in front and then got round to the back with the deeper ones.
What do you say as to the wound in the throat which severed the artery; could that have been severed from the back?
DROUGHT: That could have been struck from the back.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean the one that cut his carotid artery might have been struck from the back?
DROUGHT: Quite.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I did not catch the answer.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He said that the one that cut his carotid artery could have been struck from the back (To the Witness) Might it have been struck from the front too?
DROUGHT: It is rather doubtful I think; it more likely to be struck from the back.
How about these wounds at the back; the wound that went up from the back of his ear, would that have been struck from the back?
DROUGHT: Yes, I think when the first would at the back of the neck happened that he probably drew forward, bent forward and then he received the second one because that goes from below upwards. The man could not have been standing up when he got this second wound here hardly.
The second big wound you mean?
DROUGHT: The second big one. There are two distinct wounds, one here and one round here (indicating).
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: You think the second was given when he was bending forward?
DROUGHT: I think possibly he was bending down.
Were the superficial cuts on the chin so far as you could judge the result of blows at the same time, or could they been caused otherwise – were they fresh?
DROUGHT: I beg your pardon?
What do you think as to the time at which the wound on the chin was struck, that is what I want to know?
DROUGHT: I think they were just done by the point.
At the same time as the other wounds were struck?
DROUGHT: The same time as the other front wounds – not immediately the same time.
On the same occasion?
DROUGHT: On the same occasion, yes.
And could the man have spoken or have walked after the wound which severed the artery?
DROUGHT: The wound that severed the main artery was 14 feet from where he was first attacked, from where the first blood was; and the total distance from where he was first attacked to where he was found dead was 44 feet; there was blood along the pathway, all the way.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You went to examine the path, did you?
DROUGHT: I did.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was coming to the actual traces that you found. First of all, I want, as an ordinary fact, would it be possible for him to walk after the blow that severed the artery was struck?
DROUGHT: It would be possible but not for very long.
And would it have been possible for him to speak?
DROUGHT: I do not think he would be able to speak very much.
Were you afterwards shown the place at which the attack was delivered?
DROUGHT: I was.
Did you find marks of blood on the pavement or in the road?
DROUGHT: I did.
And you measured the distance of 14 feet from the place where the first sign of blood were seen?
DROUGHT: Yes that is so
What was the point to which you measured the 14 feet?
DROUGHT: The point from where the first blood appeared on the pathway.
To what point?
DROUGHT: To where he went off the pathway on to the road.
How did you find that he went off the pathway – or did you infer it?
DROUGHT: By the track of the blood. The blood was along the pathway for 14 feet, then it goes on to the road and the blood falls down in a circle in the road.
And from that point where does it go?
DROUGHT: Well, from that point he went back to the wall.
Is there anything to indicate the place at which the blows were struck or the blow was struck which severed the artery?
DROUGHT: When he went off the pathway on to the road where this blood was 14 feet from the first attack there is a jet of blood along the kerb extending 6 feet.
Would that be the result of the severance of the artery?
DROUGHT: That would be the result of the severance of the artery.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The blood would spurt out from that?
DROUGHT: Yes, from that the first spurt of the big artery; it was a single jet; it was a straight line.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: And from that point?
DROUGHT: He came back on to the footpath to a door in the wall and there is a jet of blood going in thew opposite direction, extending three feet.
Might that have been from the severed artery or did that indicate another blow?
DROUGHT: No, that was from the same; it was on a level with the wound in the man’s throat, it would be about on a level.
It was on the wall at the same height?
DROUGHT: It was on the wall round the door facing it.
And that might have come from the artery?
DROUGHT: From the same artery, yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: About these blows at the back: had they severed any important vein or artery?
DROUGHT: No, nothing important.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: From that point at which there was a mark on the wall at the height of his throat, were there further signs of blood?
DROUGHT: There were along the footpath.
To a distance, I think you said, of about 44 feet altogether?
DROUGHT: 44 feet would be from the first spot of blood to the last.
Was there anything to show the place at which he sank down, we are told, against the fence?
DROUGHT: Merely the blood.
Where the blood stopped?
DROUGHT: Where the blood stopped.
Which of these wounds would produce death, or was there more than one?
DROUGHT: The wound which produced death was the one at the side of the neck, which severed the artery and opened the gullet, causing all the loss of blood.
And what would be the immediate cause of death – suffocation?
DROUGHT: Heart failure, syncope from loss of blood. He vomited the blood a couple of times on the pathway.
Did the marks and the cuts correspond with the wounds that you found on the body?
DROUGHT: The cuts over the pocket on the left hand side correspond with the four slight cuts on the front of the stomach here below the ribs.
Was there more than one cut there?
DROUGHT: No, only one.
Were there any other cuts in the clothing?
DROUGHT: Oh, yes, there were several.
Whereabouts?
DROUGHT: On the coat on the left side there were four cuts.
Whereabouts?
DROUGHT: On the collar up here and on the coat collar there were five cuts.
Is that all the cuts that were found on the clothing?
DROUGHT: No, there is one cut on the right shoulder of the coat and on the right sleeve there is one which went through the sleeve, went in one side and out the other; it did not divide the sleeve right through.
Did you form an opinion in what way the blow was delivered or how it was received? Was the arm raised or depressed?
DROUGHT: From the shape of the cut I should imagine the arm was raised and bent because, when you extend the arm, the cut is “S” shaped. If the arm had been extended and caught the blow there it would be a straight cut, one way or the other.
I ought to have asked you one other question: how long do you think it would be before he died after the severe one was delivered?
DROUGHT: I should think a few minutes — a couple of minutes.
CROSS- EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
With regard to the wound on the arm which you were telling us of just now, you are quite clear, are you not, that when that wound was delivered the deceased must have been holding his arm up like that?
DROUGHT: I take it that was the position.
And you are saying here, are not you, that the assailant must have been in front of the deceased man when that blow was inflicted?
DROUGHT: Not that particular blow, I do not think: it might have been in front or it might have been at the side.
At any rate, not behind?
DROUGHT: The arm is in that position. There is no reason why he should not have come from behind that way; there is nothing to indicate whether the knife went in that way or that way.
There is no reason. What I am asking you is – as you are helping us in this matter – are you prepared to say that that blow could have been inflicted by an assailant standing right behind the deceased man?
DROUGHT: If the arm had been up in that position it could have been.
How?
DROUGHT: Standing behind, well behind he could have driven it from behind.
You mean to say he would lean over his shoulder and it in that way?
DROUGHT: No, there is no need to lean over his shoulder.
Just show us how you mean?
DROUGHT: If the arm was there —
From behind; I am suggesting that the assailant is standing right behind; how is it done?
DROUGHT: The arm is up and the man behind; why could not he put the knife through that way?
Assuming that the arm was up to strike somebody else?
DROUGHT: Yes.
You would not say then it could have been struck from behind, would you, this blow?
DROUGHT: Well, you could not – there is no reason why it was not struck from behind at all, as far as I can see.
Is not it more consistent, because you are only telling us what you think?
DROUGHT: Yes, quite so.
Is not it more consistent with what you found that that arm was raised and that the blow was inflicted by an assailant standing on front of the deceased man? Is not it more consistent with the position of the wound?
DROUGHT: He might possibly be standing in front or it might have been inflicted either way,
You are not prepared to say at all?
DROUGHT: No; I was not there; I did not see it.
I gather from you that, apart from the two stabs on the back of the neck, there were a number of wounds in the front the body of this man?
DROUGHT: That is so.
Including the wound on the arm?
DROUGHT: Yes.
And the stomach?
DROUGHT: Four slight wounds.
The fatal one was the wound in the neck here?
DROUGHT: Yes, on the side of the neck.
On the right side?
DROUGHT: On the right side.
And I understand you to say that you are doubtful as to whether that blow might, or might not, have been inflicted from behind or in front?
DROUGHT: Which, the wound here (indicating)?
No, the fatal wound in the neck?
DROUGHT: Ah, no.
You told us in chief it was doubtful?
DROUGHT: I think the wound on the neck, the fatal wound, was received from behind.
You are prepared to be certain on that point?
DROUGHT: My own opinion of it was that it was received from behind.
But it is doubtful?
DROUGHT: It is doubtful.
That is what you said in chief?
DROUGHT: I think it must have been received from behind.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is what he said, as I took it down. I am not putting it against you; I think he said that.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: That is as far as you will put it?
DROUGHT: Yes.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I have no questions.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You have left the impression on my mind that all these wounds were not slashes it stabs.
DROUGHT: Stabs.
LILIAN BYWATERS Sworn
EXAMINED BY ROLAND OLIVER
Your name is Lilian Bywaters, and do you live at 11, Westow Street, Upper Norwood, and you are a widow?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Is the prisoner Bywaters your son?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
How old is he now?
LILIAN BYWATERS: 20.
When was his birthday?
LILIAN BYWATERS: The 27th June of this year. He was 20 on the 27th June last.
The 27th June this year?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
For some years past has he been employed by the P. & O. Company?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
As what?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Writer.
Ship’s writer?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
When the ship was in port and his duties did not necessitate his staying with the ship, where would be living during that time?
LILIAN BYWATERS: With me.
Did he ever live anywhere else?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Once he stayed away for, I think it was, a fortnight; that would be last summer.
Last summer?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Do you mean last summer or the summer before?
LILIAN BYWATERS: The summer before, I should say.
The summer of last year?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
And where did he stay then?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I believe he was staying with Mr and Mrs Thompson.
Did he tell you where he had stayed?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He told me he had been staying with Mr and Mrs Thompson.
Where?
LILIAN BYWATERS: At Ilford.
Anywhere else?
LILIAN BYWATERS: And he went away with them for a holiday.
Where?
A, To the Isle of Wight.
That was in the summer of 1932?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes
Do you remember the month?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I could not say for certain; I believe it was July, I should think, but I could not say for certain.
He would be just 19 then?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He was just 19, yes.
Was he for the last year or more on a ship called the “Morea”?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
A P. & O. ship. When she was in port did she sometimes lie at Tilbury?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, I think it was generally at Tilbury.
Did your son always stay with you?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Always except on that occasion.
Except on one occasion?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes; sometimes he slept on board, I believe.
Do you know some people called Graydon?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I know the boys only, through going to school with my son.
Did he ever stay with the Graydons at Manor Park?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I could not say for certain, but I believe he did stay there for a short time.
A short time?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, but I could not say for certain.
I suppose all you know about it is what he told you?
LILIAN BYWATERS: That is all; I did write to Mrs Graydon once.
Do you know Mrs Graydon?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I know her slightly.
Do you know her by sight?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I have been in her company once or twice at the outside.
What was the last time you saw her before this affair?
LILIAN BYWATERS: It was some time early this year.
Did you speak to her the last time you saw her?
LILIAN BYWATERS: No.
I want you to come to the last time your son came home sea. Did the “Morea ” get in on the 23rdSeptember?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Did your son remain with the ship for some days?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Working on the ship, yes.
Where was he sleeping?
LILIAN BYWATERS: At home.
And from the 23rd he slept at your house, but worked on the ship, for how long?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Well, right up to within the last five days, I think it was, when he had leave.
Do you remember the day of the week when he got leave and stopped working on the ship?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I could not tell you the date, but I think it was the Friday.
If it was the Friday it would be the 29th September?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
I want you to tell us, please, from the 29th September, as well as you recollect, how he spent his time. Do you remember what he did that day?
LILIAN BYWATERS: On the 29th?
When he went out from home and came back?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Well, he just went up to town, as far as I know, and came back home in the evening; came back home to sleep.
What sort of time?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Well, something after 9.
The following day would be the Saturday. Do you remember what he did then?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He went up to town in the morning, and he was to tea.
The next day would be Sunday, the 1st October. What did he do that day?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Stayed at home all day.
He did not go out at all?
LILIAN BYWATERS: No.
On the Monday morning, the 2nd October?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He went up to town.
Before he went up to town did anything happen?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, there was a ‘phone message for him.
Did you answer the ’phone?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I answered the ‘phone, yes.
Was it a man or a woman who spoke to you?
LILIAN BYWATERS: A woman.
And as the result of speaking to the woman did your son go to the telephone?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, he came downstairs from his bedroom.
Did you recognize the voice?
LILIAN BYWATERS: No, I could not say for certain; I only know it was a woman’s voice.
He then spoke on the telephone to a woman?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
And after that what did he do?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He went up to town.
What time, do you remember — what sort of time?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Well, it would be just after eleven, I think, he went.
When did he come back?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He came back at night.
What time?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I think it was the 11.5 train from Victoria.
Had you been to town yourself that day?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, I was on the same train that he came home on.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is your station?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Gipsy Hill.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: That is Monday, the 2nd. Now Tuesday the 3rd. What was the first thing that happened?
LILIAN BYWATERS: The telephone went again in the morning.
What time?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Just before 9, I think it was.
Did you answer it?
LILIAN BYWATERS: No, my son answered it.
Q, So you cannot tell me what the sex of the person who rang up was?
LILIAN BYWATERS: No.
When did he leave the house?
LILIAN BYWATERS: A little before 12.
What time did you go to bed that evening?
LILIAN BYWATERS: It was about half past 10.
Had he come back when you went to bed?
LILIAN BYWATERS: no.
What was the next you heard of him?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I heard the alarm bell at the door go.
You had an alarm bell on the front door of your house?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Does it go when you open the front door?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Had you been asleep when you heard the alarm go?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Well, I think I must have been. I am not sure.
Do you know what time it was?
LILIAN BYWATERS: No. I could not say the time.
Did you speak at all?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, I called out to him. I said “Is that you, Mick?” and he answered “Yes, Mum”.
One thing I omitted to ask you, and I will ask you now; when he went out that day, had he been wearing an overcoat?
LILIAN BYWATERS: As far as I remember he had an overcoat.
You would know his overcoat if you saw it now?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: A blue one, is not it?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: A blue one, yes, my Lord (To the Witness) Did you see him the next morning?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you speak to him about the night begore?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
What did you say?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I said to him, ”You were late last night, were not you?”. He said, “Yes”. I said, “Did you go to sleep in the train?” and he said, “Yes, and went on to Norwood Junction.”
Did he tell you how he got back from there?
LILIAN BYWATERS: No, he did not say.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: How far off is Norwood Junction?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: How far off is Norwood Junction from you?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I am not certain whether it is two or three stations further down the line.
What is your station?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Gipsy Hill.
On the next day, the 4th, did you go up to London him?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
When did you last see him; were did you leave him?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I left him at the corner of Cheapside, just past Nicholson’s.
What time?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Between half-past two and three.
In the afternoon?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
That is the last time I saw him before he was in custody, was not it?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
At eleven o’clock that evening did an Inspector of Police come to you?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I believe they came earlier than that; I was not at home.
Inspector Page, was not it?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you take him to your son’s bedroom?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you see him take some letters?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, out of a suitcase.
Where did he take them from?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Out of a suitcase.
Anywhere else?
LILIAN BYWATERS: And I think he took two pieces of paper out of a coat.
Your son’s coat?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: One other thing. That is the last train down to your station?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I could not say for certain, but I believe it is ten minutes past 12 from Victoria.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Just a few questions — are you feeling all right, or would you like to sit down? (The Witness took a seat in the witness-box). I think your husband was a ship’s clerk also, was not he?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Did he join the Army in 1914?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, in the December.
And I think he was killed in the war?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
And at the time he was killed was this boy 13?
LILIAN BYWATERS: No, not when he was killed; he was 13 when his father went away in the Army.
I think after your husband was killed you started this little milliner’s business in Upper Norwood.
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
And this boy has been with you always except at the times when he is at sea?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Quite true, yes.
And the time you told us when he was staying with the Thompson’s?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
When he was at school did he get a good character from the school?
LILIAN BYWATERS: A splendid character; every report was marked “Excellent.”
Was the report as to his character always “Excellent”?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, I believe always, as far as I remember.
We have got them here, if necessary. After leaving school did he go to some
shipping agents in Leadenhall Street?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Did he remain with them for nine months?
LILIAN BYWATERS: About that time.
And leave with an excellent character?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Did he then go to another firm of shipping agents, and did he remain with them until February 1918?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, until he joined the ship.
Then he joined the merchant service as a write?
LILIAN BYWATERS: That is right.
And from that time has he been at sea most of the time, simply with intervals of a fortnight (which we shall get later on), and does his certificate of discharge show at the end of every voyage his character for ability very good, and for general conduct very good?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
He has been all over the world?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, practically.
I think you have got a daughter as well?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I have two daughters.
His age was 16 when he joined the Merchant Service?
LILIAN BYWATERS: 15.
When he came back the last time his ship came in on September 22nd; is that right?
LILIAN BYWATERS: The 23rd I think.
And he came straight back to your house at Westow Hill.
LILIAN BYWATERS: Straight back, yes, the same day.
and although he had to work on the ship until September 29th, he went backwards and forwards from your house to the ship?
LILIAN BYWATERS: To Tilbury, yes.
Always sleeping at your house?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Always.
Now on Saturday the 30th he came home at mid-day; is that right?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Well, about 4 o’clock, to tea.
The Saturday, just think. I am not talking about the Friday, the Saturday?
LILIAN BYWATERS: The Saturday.
The Saturday before this happened?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, I think it was about 4 o’clock.
And was he at home from that time during the whole of Sunday, and he did not go out again until the Monday morning at about 11?
LILIAN BYWATERS: That is so.
That is quite right?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
Then you have told us about his leaving on the 2nd; that was Monday. Do you know that on that evening he visited the Graydon’s house on October 2nd?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I did not know it until I have heard it just lately.
And that after visiting them in the evening he came back to your house; he slept at your house that evening?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
On October 3rd, the Tuesday, do you know that he visited the Graydons again that evening?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I did not know it at the time.
He came home that night, and on the following day, October 4th did he do some shopping with you?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes, he went into a chemist.
And did you both come up to London together?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
And was he with you till about 2 o’clock in the afternoon, when he left you at St Paul’s Churchyard?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He was with me till after 2.
Only one other question: Has he always been an excellent son ? –
LILIAN BYWATERS: One of the best that a mother could have.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: I have no questions.
WILLIAM EUSTACE GRAYDON Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Is your name William Eustace Graydon, and do you reside at 231, Shakespeare Crescent, Manor Park.
MR GRAYDON: I do.
The female prisoner is your daughter?
MR GRAYDON: Quite right.
She was married to Mr Thompson on the 3rd January, 1915?
MR GRAYDON: On the 3rd?
What date was it?
MR GRAYDON: I think the 15th.
You think it was the 15th January, 1915 [1916]?
MR GRAYDON: Quite right.
What age is she now?
MR GRAYDON: 29 on Christmas Day.
Next Christmas Day?
MR GRAYDON: Next Christmas Day – 28 gone.
There were no children of the marriage, were there?
MR GRAYDON: No.
Do you know her as living for the last couple of years at 41, Kensington Gardens?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
Did you see here there with her husband from time to time?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
At Ilford?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
How long have you known the prisoner Bywaters?
MR GRAYDON: About two and a half to three years, to the best of my recollection.
While he was at home between voyages did he come to your house from time to time?
MR GRAYDON: He did.
Did he ever live with you?
MR GRAYDON: He stayed for a period with us while he was waiting for a ship.
How long ago was that?
MR GRAYDON: That would be in the summer of 1922.
Now I want to ask you about October of this year, 1922. Did he visit you after the 23rd September, when he came home, on several occasions?
MR GRAYDON: He did.
And on the 2nd October was he with you at your house?
MR GRAYDON: What day would that be, Sir?
That would be the Monday.
MR GRAYDON: On the Monday he was.
What time was he at your house on the Monday?
MR GRAYDON: In the evening about 6.45 or 7 o’clock perhaps.
What time did he leave?
MR GRAYDON: Until about 10, or possibly a little later.
Now the next day, the 3rd October, the Tuesday, did you see him?
MR GRAYDON: I did.
What time did he come?
MR GRAYDON: About the same time.
And what time did he leave you?
MR GRAYDON: Somewhere about the same time.
Do you remember whether in the course of that evening anything was said about
Mr and Mrs Thompson, and where they were?
MR GRAYDON: I do.
Tell us what was said, and who said it?
MR GRAYDON: My unmarried daughter said that the Thompsons had gone to a Theatre.
Was that said in the presence of Bywaters?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
Did he say anything to that?
MR GRAYDON: He made no comment.
Your unmarried daughter is a Miss Avis?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
That being the night of 3rd October, did you see Bywaters at your house the next day, the 4th October?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
About what time?
MR GRAYDON: That would be in the evening, about 7 o’clock.
Had he got a paper, an evening paper, or had you got an evening paper?
MR GRAYDON: He had an “Evening News”.
Did he say to you about what appeared in it?
MR GRAYDON: He said, “Have you seen the paper tonight Mr Graydon?” I said “No”.
He said “This is a terrible thing if it is true”.
Did you know what he was referring to?
MR GRAYDON: I surmised what he was referring to.
What did you say to him?
MR GRAYDON: I said, “I am afraid it is only too true”.
Did he show you any paper?
MR GRAYDON: No he did not.
Did you know at that time that Mr Thompson had been killed by somebody?
MR GRAYDON: I knew that Mr Thompson was dead.
While Bywaters was at your house that evening, did some Police Officers come and take him away with them?
MR GRAYDON: They did.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY.
Were your daughter and her husband frequent visitors at your house?
MR GRAYDON: Weekly visitors.
It was a well-known thing that they would come in – would it be on a Friday?
MR GRAYDON: Generally on a Friday, practically regularly.
Mr Bywaters had been known to you and your family for some considerable time?
MR GRAYDON: That is so.
They were on friendly terms, with you and your other daughter Avis, and your wife?
MR GRAYDON: Quite so.
He was a frequent visitor at your house?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
I want you if you can to try and remember the first time he came to your house after he came back from his ship on September 23rd. Do you remember?
MR GRAYDON: After September 23rd?
Yes. You know he came back from his last voyage on 23rd September. He was employed, as we know, up till the 29th, which was the Friday?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
Do you remember his coming that week at all, either on the Friday or the Saturday, or was it not until the Monday?
MR GRAYDON: Not until the Monday.
He came to see you on Monday, October 2nd?
MR GRAYDON: That is so.
He came in the evening, did he?
MR GRAYDON: In the evening.
Can you tell us, was it about half past seven?
MR GRAYDON: Well, it would be round about that time.
And was he there talking to you and your family for something like three hours?
MR GRAYDON: Quite probable till about 10 or 10.30. It is quite likely; perhaps not quite so late.
Talking to you and your wife and your daughter Avis; and was there a son there?
MR GRAYDON: My son was there, but he may have gone out during the evening.
Is that Bill?
MR GRAYDON: No, Newenham.
And that was on the Monday evening. Had he had any conversation with you that evening about tobacco?
MR GRAYDON: Tobacco?
Yes, getting tobacco?
MR GRAYDON: He had, yes.
Had you agreed to get some tobacco for him?
MR GRAYDON: I had.
That was on the Monday evening. Did he come again on the Tuesday evening?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
That was October 3rd?
MR GRAYDON: Quite so.
And what time did he arrive that evening?
MR GRAYDON: Probably about the same time – somewhere about 7.
And how long was he there?
MR GRAYDON: Until 10 or thereabouts.
And during the whole time was he talking to you and your wife and your daughter?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
Your daughter Avis, of course I mean?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
Can you remember, did Mrs Thompson’s name come up during that conversation?
MR GRAYDON: I cannot recollect it, Sir.
Do you remember any comment being made about the tobacco pouch that Bywaters had?
MR GRAYDON: No.
Just try and think?
MR GRAYDON: I have no recollection of any comment being made.
Do you remember either your wife or your daughter asking him where he got the tobacco pouch?
MR GRAYDON: I do not recollect that.
Were you there all the time he was there?
MR GRAYDON: Not all the time, no.
So it may have been when you were not in the room?
MR GRAYDON: Possibly.
But you do not remember. You told my learned friend that it was stated that Mrs Thompson had gone to the theatre in his presence?
MR GRAYDON: It was stated.
You remember that?
MR GRAYDON: Oh, yes.
There was some conversation about Mrs Thompson having gone to the theatre that night with her husband?
MR GRAYDON: That is so.
And following on that I am suggesting to you there was a conversation about Mrs Thompson and a tobacco pouch, having given it to the Prisoner Bywaters.
MR GRAYDON: I do not recollect anything of it myself.
Was he exactly the same on that evening as he had always been on previous evenings?
MR GRAYDON: Quite.
Nothing unusual about him?
MR GRAYDON: Nothing whatever.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT
We have heard about your son-in-law being rejected from the Army in 1916. How many years have you known him; had you known him long before the marriage?
MR GRAYDON: About seven years.
During the whole of the time you knew him had he complained of heart attacks?
MR GRAYDON: He had complained of various attacks.
He complained of his heart?
MR GRAYDON: Generally, yes.
Complained of his heart generally, that was from time to time was it?
MR GRAYDON: That is so, from time to time.
Had you ever seen him in a heart attack, or not?
MR GRAYDON: No, I have never seen him myself.
You yourself had never seen him in a heart attack?
MR GRAYDON: Quite so.
Now I just want to ask you a question or two about Exhibits 15.A and B. Those are two Exhibits referred to by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL in opening the case.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Have you thought of having some copies of these Exhibits made for the Jury?
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: My copy has been supplied to me by the Treasury.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not want the whole of them, not those that are not put in. If they are going to be read out it would be much more satisfactory.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will see whether I can pick out the right ones.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You understand how difficult it is. A great many of them are undated, but they are a very important feature of this case, and it will save me and the Jury some trouble if, when they retire, you will hand over to them the documents.
MR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: Now, of course, that the letters have been admitted in evidence, I want them all in.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: My Lord, so do I, every one of them.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Then I think it would be a good thing if it were possible to let us have, say, three typewritten copies of those letters.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I should like to understand what my learned friends would like. Are they to be the letters which were exhibited at the Police Court? They would like four copies, if possible, of the whole of the letters exhibited.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: If I might suggest it, the letters ought not to be picked up in a bundle and handed to the Jury, but handed to the Jury as they are put in.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Well, they could not be put in one after another.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: The trouble is this. One does not want a letter right at the end to come before the Jury before a letter which was written perhaps a year before.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: But as soon as it is put in I do not hand the letter to the Jury; I might ask that it should be read.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: I am going to ask that every letter which is referred to by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL now be read in extenso.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are entitled to ask it when they are put in, but obviously everything that he has extracts from you are entitled to have the full letter read and to ask the Jury to study it. I really think the best way, Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett, is to provide, of course, a volume. We do not want this strewn with odd letters.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: May I say that if a volume is to be prepared for the Jury, may they be put in their proper chronological order, because it is very important.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I wish they could be.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: As they were put in at the Police Court they put in anyhow.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If my learned friends will take the dates which we have referred to, and let us put them in order, we will put them in the right order, and my friends can deal with them as they think fit.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: If all these letters are read and studied in detail, they are as long as a two-volume novel, at any rate, and the Jury will want leisure to study them, and it would be as well if they could study them in some of the enforced leisure the law imposes upon them.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am told it is doubtful whether it can be done by tomorrow morning; it may be done by the adjournment.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The important thing is that they should have them to study before the case is finished. I do not want to do anything in a hurry, and without full consideration.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We will let them have them.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: (To the Witness) Exhibits 15.A and 15.B: the Jury have been told that there was an enclosure in a letter written by your daughter to Mr Bywaters, and enclosure which referred to a Dr Wallis and the death by hyoscine of a curate. I want to ask you a question or two about that.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He had better take them. Just show them to the Jury. You heard them read, Gentlemen; they are scraps from newspapers.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: Might the Witness have them in his hand for a moment?
JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Certainly. (Some handed to the Witness).
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Take this in your hand. This is one of the enclosures which have been referred to. The first one,15a, is a cutting from the “Daily Sketch” of the 9th February, and it is headed “Curate’s household of three. Mystery of his death still unsolved, Wife and doctor. Woman asked to leave the Court during man’s evidence”. Have you got that?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
Do you see that that report refers to a Dr Preston Wallis?
MR GRAYDON: I do.
Was Dr Preston Wallis for a long period the family doctor to the Graydons?
MR GRAYDON: He was my doctor.
From what date; about what date?
MR GRAYDON: Something like 1900.
Therefore from 1900 to 1915 when your daughter married Dr Preston Wallis would have been her doctor?
MR GRAYDON: He would.
Practically all her life until she was married – not quite?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: 1900; did he cease to be your doctor in 1900?
MR GRAYDON: No, started in 1900, my Lord.
Up till when?
MR GRAYDON: Till she left home.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: So for 15 years of her life up to her marriage the man about whom this cutting refers had been your family doctor?
MR GRAYDON: That is so.
And 15b is a continuation apparently of the same report. “Resumed Inquest following analyst’s investigation. Poisoned Curate”. That is about the same man?
MR GRAYDON: Yes, that is so.
Besides Dr Preston Wallis having been the family doctor for your daughter for 15 years did Bywaters live for some time at Manor Park?
MR GRAYDON: He did.
Up till what date?
MR GRAYDON: Well, until during the war or shortly afterwards.
We will take it up till about 1916 or 1917; is that about right or later?
MR GRAYDON: Possibly a little earlier, possibly 1916.
Can you tell my Lord and the jury, was Dr Preston Wallis also the doctor for Bywaters?
MR GRAYDON: I could not swear to that.
You do not know?
MR GRAYDON: I do not know.
Anyhow that cutting refers to the family doctor of your daughter?
MR GRAYDON: That is so.
Now I want you to look if you please at exhibit 24. The part of it that I am going to refer appears on page 75, if you will be good enough to look at the top of page 75.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: How does it begin?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: “I rang”, at the top pf page 75, my Lord. (To the witness): I want you just to follow this. That is in your daughter’s handwriting is it not?
MR GRAYDON: That is, sir.
And the date of the letter is the 13th June 1922. Just follow what I am going to read. “I rang Avis yesterday and she said he came down there in a rage and told Dad everything – about all the rows we have had over you – but she did not mention he said anything about the first real one on August 1st so I suppose he kept that back to suit his own ends. Dad said it was a disgraceful thing that you should come between husband and wife and I ought to be ashamed. Darlint I told you this is how they would look at it; they don’t understand and they never will any of them”. I pause there for a moment. Mr Graydon, did Mrs.[ Mr.] Thompson ever come to you and make any complaint as to the conduct of Bywaters with your daughter?
MR GRAYDON: He did not.
That is the purest imagination?
MR GRAYDON: Imagination entirely.
I will go on. Just follow: “Dad was going to talk to me Avis said, but I went down and nothing whatever was said by any of them. I told Avis I should tell them off if they said anything to me; I didn’t go whining to my people when he did things I didn’t approve of, and I didn’t expect him to; but however nothing was said at all. Dad said to them ‘What a scandal if it should get in the papers’ so evidently he suggested drastic measures to them”. Now Mr Graydon is there any truth in those two paragraphs?
MR GRAYDON: None whatever.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is not what this lady has said; it is what she said the witness had said to her.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I am taking it by steps at present, my Lord. (To the witness): If anybody reported that – I will put it in that way – it would be quite untrue, would it not?
MR GRAYDON: Quite so.
Pure imagination by somebody – I will not use the word pure – imagination by somebody?
MR GRAYDON: Exactly.
And the last paragraph where it is alleged that you had said what a scandal if it should get in the papers; is that quite untrue?
MR GRAYDON: Quite untrue – quite untrue.
As a matter of fact, had you any idea that your daughter and her husband were not on good terms?
MR GRAYDON: None whatever.
Whenever you saw them together did they always appear to be quite happy and fond of each other.
MR GRAYDON: Perfectly, Sir.
RE-EXAMINED BY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
You told my learned friend Mr. Whiteley, or perhaps it was my learned friend Mr. Travers Humphreys, that your daughter mentioned the fact that the Thompsons had gone to the theatre or were going to the theatre on the night of the 3rd October. Was it said what theatre they were going to?
MR GRAYDON: I cannot call to mind of a theatre being mentioned – any specific name.
Can you tell me whether it would be necessary or even convenient for Bywaters to go through Ilford in order to get from Manor Park – your house – to Upper Norwood?
MR GRAYDON: It might not be convenient.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is the ordinary way?
MR GRAYDON: The ordinary your Lordship would be from East Ham on the District Railway.
Are there trams as well?
MR GRAYDON: Or there are trams and buses my Lord.
Ilford Station takes you to Liverpool Street?
MR GRAYDON: Liverpool Street or Fenchurch Street.
What is the other way – you say East Ham?
MR GRAYDON: East Ham on the District Line to all City stations, such as the Mansion House.
It would take you to Victoria?
MR GRAYDON: It would take you to Victoria, yes.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: At any rate, is there any route that would take him through or near Belgrave Road in order to get to Upper Norwood?
MR GRAYDON: Not that I know of.
One other question. You were asked as to whether Dr. Wallis was a friend of your family. Have you any knowledge or any acquaintance with Dr. Farnell?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University?
MR GRAYDON: No.
At any rate he is a stranger to you?
MR GRAYDON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I want you to answer me one question. You had always thought that Thompson and your daughter were on good terms. Had you ever heard of any trouble about Bywaters coming between them?
MR GRAYDON: Never, my Lord.
ERNEST FOSTER Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Your name is Ernest Foster and you are a Detective Constable. On the 4th October in the evening did you go to Mr. Graydon’s house, Manor Park and there see the prisoner Bywaters?
FOSTER: Yes.
What did you say to him?
FOSTER: I said to him “We are Police Officers, is your name Frederick Bywaters”, he said “Yes”. I said “I wish you to accompany us to Ilford Police Station for the purpose of being interviewed in connection with the Ilford Murder”. He made no reply. I later conveyed him to Ilford police station, where he was detained.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Was anybody else with you?
FOSTER: Yes.
Who else?
FOSTER: Sergeant Williams, Mr. Graydon, and I think Mr. Newenham Graydon.
They were present in the room when you said you wanted him to go to Ilford Police Station?
FOSTER: Yes.
You did not make any note of what happened at the time, did you?
FOSTER: I did, when I got back to the Station.
He might have said to you “Certainly”?
FOSTER: Yes, he may have said so, but I did not hear him.
Of course you may not have heard what he said, but I suggest what was said to you was “Certainly, I will do anything I can to help you”?
FOSTER: No, I dd not hear that.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: At any rate, he went quietly?
FOSTER: Yes.
MR WHITELEY: He went to the Ilford Station with you?
FOSTER: Yes.
FANNY MARIA LESTER Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Is your name Fanny Maria Lester?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
You live at 41 Kensington Gardens, Ilford?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
And did you live at that house before Mr. and Mrs. Thompson came to live there?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
Was it about two years ago that they came?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
And when they came did they buy the house; did Mr. Thompson buy the house?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
And you became their tenant of part of the house?
MRS LESTER: Yes, part of the house.
Did Mr and Mrs Thompson occupy the two rooms upstairs and some rooms downstairs?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
Used both Mr. and Mrs. Thompson to go to their business in London?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
About what time did they leave?
MRS LESTER: At the latter part of the time they left about a quarter past eight.
And which of them would arrive home first?
MRS LESTER: Generally Mrs. Thompson.
What time would she get home?
MRS LESTER: About a quarter to seven; perhaps before that.
And he?
MRS LESTER: Sometimes he was very late.
Tell me what you mean by very late?
MRS LESTER: Well, 10 and 11 before he got home.
Do you remember their going for a holiday to the Isle of Wight last year?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
What time of year was it, do you remember the month?
MRS LESTER: In June.
Did you know they were going to the Isle of Wight?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
When they came back from their holiday did they bring the prisoner Bywaters with them?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
How long were they away, a fortnight or three weeks?
MRS LESTER: A fortnight.
And did he stay there as a paying guest with the Thompsons for some time?
MRS LESTER: He stayed there, I do not know if he was a paying guest or not; he stayed there with him.
Until when; when did he leave?
MRS LESTER: The Tuesday after the August Bank Holiday.
What happened that morning of the Tuesday after the August Bank Holiday?
MRS LESTER: Mr. Thompson had his breakfast in bed and Mr. Bywaters and Mrs. Thompson had theirs downstairs and then Mr. Bywaters went away after Mr. Thompson and Mrs. Thompson had gone out – went away for good.
Did Mrs. Thompson show you some part of her body?
MRS LESTER: Yes, she showed me her arm.
What was the matter with her arm?
MRS LESTER: It was black from the shoulder to the elbow.
What did she say about it?
MRS LESTER: She said it was where Mr. Thompson had pushed her on the Monday.
What did she say about it; tell us exactly what she said?
MRS LESTER: Well, she showed me her arm and I said “Oh my, what is that”; she said “Where Mr. Thompson and Mr. Bywaters were having a few words and I interfered and he pushed me on one side – shoved me up against the table”.
And as a matter of fact, did Bywaters leave the house within a day or so of that?
MRS LESTER: I think so.
And did not come back again?
MRS LESTER: No.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did you ever see him come to the house again after that day?
MRS LESTER: He came there again once; it was on one Saturday afternoon.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Do you remember when?
MRS LESTER: No, I could not say the date when.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean he came and saw both of them or only one?
MRS LESTER: Yes, both Mr. and Mrs. Thompson.
Was it the same year, 1921?
MRS LESTER: Yes, well – I am not sure.
You do not remember at all?
MRS LESTER: It was after they went away; after they had been foe their holiday, some time after he had left; I think he had been away to sea and it was when he came back again.
Before Bywaters had come and stayed there with them from June to August, before that time altogether had Mr. and Mrs. Thompson as far as you know been on good terms?
MRS LESTER: Well, I could not say that – no, they were not on very good terms at any time.
They were not on very good terms at any time?
MRS LESTER: No.
After the August when Bywaters left did you hear anything which enables you to tell us whether they were on good terms?
MRS LESTER: Well, we used to hear them having very high words at times.
You could hear that, could you?
MRS LESTER: Yes, we could not hear what it was but we could hear them having disputes with one another.
I want to ask you about this year, the end of September or the beginning of October. Do you remember Saturday, the 30th of September?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
Can you tell me on that day if Mrs. Thompson was at home or not?
MRS LESTER: Well, they went away together in the morning, Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, and about half past ten Mrs. Thompson came back.
And was she there during the day, was she there during the middle of the day?
MRS LESTER: No, she stayed for a time and then went out again.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Between 10 and 10.20 in the morning?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Apparently she did not go to her work that day?
MRS LESTER: I could not say where she went, she went away with Mr. Thompson in the morning.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: They went together?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
Did they usually go by the same train?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: On this occasion she came back again at half past ten the same morning?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
Did you see her in the middle of the day?
MRS LESTER: Yes, she came home and cooked Mr. Thompson’s dinner.
Did he come home to dinner?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
On Sunday, which was the 1st October, was Mrs. Thompson in during the day?
MRS LESTER: Yes, she came in and cooked their dinner and they went out together in the afternoon.
We will not trouble you more than is necessary but you were telling us on the Sunday Mrs. Thompson was there all day, was she?
MRS LESTER: They went out together in the afternoon.
Just for a walk and then came back again?
MRS LESTER: No, I think they went out with some friends.
On the Monday did they both go up in the morning?
MRS LESTER: Yes, the same as usual.
Monday the 2nd?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
Do you know what time came in at all either of them?
MRS LESTER: Monday evening?
Yes?
MRS LESTER: At about 7 o’clock.
What about the Tuesday?
MRS LESTER: They did not come back the Tuesday night until Mrs. Thompson was brought back.
Did she go up on the Tuesday morning?
MRS LESTER: Yes, she went away on the Tuesday.
And the next time that you saw her was when she was brought back after midnight?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
When she was brought back did she say something to you?
MRS LESTER: No, nothing in particular.
Tell us what happened?
MRS LESTER: She only said they would not let her go with him, or they would not let her bring him home, they had taken him away from her. If they would let her go to him she would make him better.
Are the Thompsons’ rooms lighted by electric light?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
Had they any servant or did Mrs. Thompson cook the food?
MRS LESTER: Mrs. Thompson cooked the food.
They had no servant at all?
MRS LESTER: No, the servant came in the same day.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Do you mean a servant came on this day, the 4th October, for the first time?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR. CECIL WHITELEY
There is only one question: on the Saturday before this happened you are quite clear that Mrs. Thompson came back after having gone out with her husband – came back at 20 past 10.
MRS LESTER: Yes.
She remained in the house 20 minutes?
MRS LESTER: About 20 minutes.
And she was back again at 1 o’clock?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
And then had dinner at home with her husband?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
And from that time to the Monday morning, as far as you know they were together?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
Had Mrs. Thompson complained to you that the housework was too much for her?
MRS LESTER: Yes, she told me a long time [ago] that she was getting a servant.
And she told you she was going to get a servant?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
In fact, do you know that she had employed a servant?
MRS LESTER: Yes, she had.
And the servant actually arrived to take up her situation on the evening after the death of Mr. Thompson?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
That is right, is not it, the 4th October?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
Mrs. Thompson on the night of the 3rd October or the early morning of the 4th October was brought back to her house where you lived by the police, was she not?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
At that time was she in a very prostrate condition?
MRS LESTER: Very.
And, as far as you could form an opinion, did you come to the conclusion that she did not realise that her husband was dead?
MRS LESTER: Yes; she said so.
You did come to the conclusion that she did not realise that her husband was dead?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
And, in fact, what she said was this, was it not “They have taken him away from me; if they would let me go to him I could make him better.”
MRS LESTER: Yes, they were the words.
It looked clearly as if she thought he was still alive?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
My friend asked you about the cooking. Did you ever do any of the preparing of the food?
MRS LESTER: No.
For Mr. and Mrs. Thompson?
MRS LESTER: No, she generally did that herself.
Did you say “generally”?
MRS LESTER: Well, always did it.
That is what I wanted to know. Does that apply to breakfast and dinner?
MRS LESTER: Yes, all the meals that she had at home.
They were always our or nearly always out at lunchtime, I suppose?
MRS LESTER: Yes, at lunchtime.
FRANK EDWARD MYHILL Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Is your name Frank Edward Myhill?
MYHILL: Yes.
Are you employed as a clerk under the Board of Trade in the General Register of
Shipping and Seamen at Tower Hill?
MYHILL: Yes.
Do you produce Exhibit 32, a certificate relating to the British ship “Orvieto”, and Exhibit 33, a similar certificate relating to the British ship “Morea”?
MYHILL: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is this?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: It is to shew that they are British ships; it is quite formal (To the Witness) Do you produce a special log of the “Orvieto” which is Exhibit 34?
MYHILL: Yes.
And a certified extract shewing the ports of call on the voyage of the “Orvieto”; which is Exhibit 35?
MYHILL: Yes.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: May I say that your Lordship will have this summarised.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have seen it; it is only to identify the dates.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Do you produce a special log of the “Morea” on a journey between the 9th September 1921 and the 28th October 1921, Exhibit 36?
MYHILL: 29th of the 10th was the end of the voyage.
That is October, is it not?
MYHILL: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The 29th October, what was the next voyage?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Will you just produce Exhibit 37; that is an extract shewing the ports of call (Handed).
MYHILL: Yes.
Now the next Exhibit 38 and 39, is that the log and extract shewing the ports of call on the voyage which started on the 11th November 1921 and finished on the 6th January 1922? (Handed) Are those the dates?
MYHILL: Yes.
Exhibit 40 and 41, is that the log of the “Morea” and as certified extract shewing the ports of call of the voyage of the “Morea” which was started on the 20th January 1922 and ended on the 16th March? (Handed) Are those the dates?
MYHILL: Yes.
Exhibit 42 and 43 (Handed) is that a special log and extract relating to the voyage of the “Morea” which began on the 31st March and ended on the 25th May 1922?
MYHILL: Yes.
Two similar extracts 44 and 45 relating to voyage of the same ship beginning on the 9th June this year and ending on the 23rd September this year?
MYHILL: Yes.
One more Exhibit 46. (Same handed) Does that shew the beginning and the end of these various voyages and also the rating of the Prisoner Bywaters?
MYHILL: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is his rating?
MYHILL: On the first voyage he was mess-room steward; on the next a writer; the next a writer; the next a writer; the next a writer and the last a laundry steward, my Lord.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
I just want to summarise this. Will you look at Exhibit 46; Bywaters was in London for a fortnight at the end of October, the 29th, to November the 11th?
MYHILL: On the first voyage
1921 October 29th to November the 11th was the time he was in London?
MYHILL: Yes.
Now coming to this year he was only in London from January 7th to January 20th, a fortnight; do you see it?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is only another way of putting the same thing.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I only want to bring it clearly before the jury, a fortnight in London in January; a fortnight in March and a fortnight at the end of May?
MYHILL: Yes, that is so.
Three fortnights this year and the records shew on each voyage his ability and conduct as very good?
MYHILL: Very good.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: May I have Mrs. Lester back to ask one question, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Certainly.
FANNY MARIA LESTER re-called
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
I asked you about cooking just now; I ought to have put a further question to you. I think, unfortunately, your husband died in April this year, did he not?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
In March or April was it?
MRS LESTER: No, at the beginning of May.
Up to that time had you prepared porridge for breakfast?
MRS LESTER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: For whose breakfast; for your husband or for everybody?
MRS LESTER: For Mr. Lester, and Mr. Thompson used to have a plate of porridge out of it. One time he took a fancy to porridge and I said to Mrs. Thompson “Don’t you trouble to make it; I will make enough for the two”, and I made it with Mr. Lester’s.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: When Mr. Thompson took a fancy to porridge it was you who made it for him?
MRS LESTER: Yes, I never knew Mrs. Thompson make it.
You never knew Mrs. Thompson make it?
MRS LESTER: No.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: If your Lordship will remember page 88 to follow this. (To the Witness) One other thing: you were asked as to electricity in the house. In the drawing room occupied by the Thompsons was there a gas fire in the drawing room?
MRS LESTER: Yes, Mr. Thompson had it put in.
So that, although there was electricity upstairs, in the drawing room occupied by them, there was a gas fire?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Was there electric heating or only electric light?
MRS LESTER: Only electric light.
RE-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Did you send the porridge in to Mr. Thompson in one plate?
MRS LESTER: No. sometimes Mrs. Thompson would have it as well as Mr. Thompson.
And you made it for both?
MRS LESTER: Not at all times.
ARTHUR NEWBURY Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
You are chief clerk in the pursers’ department of the P.& O. Steamship Company?
NEWBURY: Yes.
You know Bywaters. Have you seen him in your Official capacity from time to time?
NEWBURY: Yes, he is a servant of the Company; I have seen him, yes.
After the arrival of the steamship “Morea” at Tilbury Docks on the 23rd September would he, as ship’s writer, have to be in attendance during the day on board?
NEWBURY: Yes.
Would he have to sleep on board or not?
NEWBURY: No, not while the ship was in dock.
He could sleep at home but he would have to work in the day?
NEWBURY: Yes, during the day.
When did his leave start?
NEWBURY: He left the ship on the 28th of September and his leave started on the morning of the 29th.
Until when?
NEWBURY: He was due on board on October the 5th.
And after the 5th October would he have had to sleep on board or not?
NEWBURY: No, not until the night before the ship left dock.
And when was that?
NEWBURY: She left on the 13th. He would be supposed to sleep on board on the 12th.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I have no questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I have no questions.
HERBERT CARLTON Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Is your name Herbert Carlton?
CARLTON: Yes.
You live I think at Dimchurch, Thorpe Bay, and you are a manufacturer of millinery?
CARLTON: Yes.
What is the name of your house?
CARLTON: Carlton & Prior.
I think you carry on business a s a wholesale milliner at 168 Aldersgate Street?
CARLTON: That is so.
Was Mrs. Thompson, the prisoner, in the employment of your firm?
CARLTON: Yes.
How long had she been in your employment?
CARLTON: She has been with me about 8 to 10 years I should think.
What were her duties?
CARLTON: She was bookkeeper and manageress.
What sort of a woman was she, I mean with regard to capacity?
CARLTON: Very capable.
What was she earning during her time with you?
CARLTON: £6 a week, and then I gave a bonus at holidays and Christmas times.
What were her hours?
CARLTON: 9 till 5.
Weekdays?
CARLTON: Yes.
Any difference on Saturdays?
CARLTON: 9 till 12.15 on Saturdays.
Do you know the other prisoner, Bywaters?
CARLTON: Yes.
How often have you seen him?
CARLTON: Twice.
Just tell the jury when?
CARLTON: About 18 months ago, once.
That was the first time?
CARLTON: The first time.
Where was that?
CARLTON: That was in our showroom then.
With anyone?
CARLTON: Yes, he was with Mrs. Thompson.
What was the next time you saw him?
CARLTON: On the Friday before the tragedy.
The Friday before the death of Mr. Thompson, that would be the 29th September?
CARLTON: That is so.
Where did you see him?
CARLTON: In the porchway at our house.
Your business house at Aldersgate Street?
CARLTON: Yes.
About what time?
CARLTON: About half past 4 or quarter to 5.
That is the time your people go away?
CARLTON: Yes.
Did Mrs. Thompson speak to you that afternoon?
CARLTON: Yes. She said that she was going. I was downstairs in the basement you see, and she simply called down that she was leaving, about 10 to 5.
About 10 to 5 she said she was going?
CARLTON: Yes.
You allowed her to go?
CARLTON: Yes.
That would be just before the ordinary time?
CARLTON: Just a few minutes before, yes.
You knew she was married, and you knew her name was Thompson, but she used her maiden name, did not she, in your business, Miss Graydon?
CARLTON: That is so.
In fact she had been in your employ before she was married?
CARLTON: Quite.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You have missed out the Saturday?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: On the Saturday, the 30th, did she come to work?
CARLTON: No.
Why?
CARLTON: She asked for the day off.
You gave it to her?
CARLTON: Yes.
Did she come on the Monday, the 2nd?
CARLTON: Yes.
On Tuesday the 3rd?
CARLTON: Yes.
And left at the ordinary time?
CARLTON: Quite.
I do not think you saw her again until after she was in custody?
CARLTON: Quite.
Have you ever seen letters for Mrs Thompson addressed to your firm?
CARLTON: One or two, yes.
What sort of letters?
CARLTON: They were registered letters.
Do you know whether they came from abroad or where?
CARLTON: I could not say.
And you gave them to her?
CARLTON: Quite.
You are familiar of course with Mrs Thompson’s handwriting?
CARLTON: Quite.
Have you had an opportunity of examining the original exhibits in this case?
CARLTON: Yes.
And have you made a list of those exhibits which you say are in her handwriting?
CARLTON: Yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Do you produce that list, exhibit 65?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: This is only a short way of taking it; formally if you want them they must all be put.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: There is no dispute about it, my Lord.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Exhibit 85 is the list of the documents in her handwriting?
CARLTON: That is right.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
You said that Mrs Thompson was a capable business woman?
CARLTON: Yes.
There was question was there at all of her leaving your employment?
CARLTON: None whatever.
And she was a sort of lady from her business capacity who would probably be able to get employment easily?
CARLTON: Quite.
Anywhere?
CARLTON: Anywhere.
LILIAN VELLENDER Sworn
EXAMINED BY ROLAND OLIVER
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I am told there is no dispute as to this witness’s evidence, so I may lead her. (To the witness) Is you name Lilian Vellender, and do you live at 66 Albion Grove Barnesbury?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
I think you are married?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
Do you work at Carlton & Prior?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
Do you know Mrs. Thompson the prisoner?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes
Do you also know Bywaters, the defendant?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
Did you meet him on a holiday once?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
Was that the first time you met him?
LILIAN VELLENDER: The first time.
Where was it?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Shanklin.
Shanklin in the Isle of Wight?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
When was it?
LILIAN VELLENDER: The summer of 1921.
June 1921?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
Was he staying there with Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and Mrs. Thompson’s sister, Miss Graydon?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
After this did you meet him only twice?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
Where was the first time?
LILIAN VELLENDER: In Aldersgate Street.
Was that near your business premises?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
When was it, last summer?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
In the evening, at 5 o’clock?
LILIAN VELLENDER: About that time, yes.
The next time you met him was when?
LILIAN VELLENDER: In Aldersgate Street.
I think you saw him twice in one week?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes, in Aldersgate Street.
Did you not see him after that until Monday, 25th September; that is about a week before the tragedy?
LILIAN VELLENDER: That is quite right; yes.
Was he then outside your premises in Aldersgate Steet?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
In the afternoon, about tea time?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Five o’clock.
Did Mrs. Thompson first tell you about his being there?
LILIAN VELLENDER: She just said that he was outside.
She told you that he was outside?
LILIAN VELLENDER: And I went across the road and had coffee with him.
Did she suggest that you should have coffee with him?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
And did you go across the road to Fullers?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Together.
Did she come over after that?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes.
And did you leave them together in Fullers?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Together.
Did you see him there next after that on the 29th September?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Friday, yes.
Where did you see him then?
LILIAN VELLENDER: In Fullers.
Was Mrs. Thompson with him?
LILIAN VELLENDER: No.
You saw her go to Fullers I think and you went away?
LILIAN VELLENDER: Yes, when I came back she was dressed, ready to leave.
MR WHITELEY: I have no questions.
(Adjourned to tomorrow morning at 10.30, bailiffs being sworn to take charge of the jury)
SECOND DAY
[THURSDAY 7 December 1922]
EDITH ANNIE BROWN Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Is your name Edith Annie Brown?
BROWN: Yes.
You are a single woman and live at 40 Maudsley Buildings, Waterloo Road?
BROWN: Yes.
You are employed at Fullers Limited, Confectioners, 42 Aldersgate Street, City?
BROWN: Yes.
Is that the shop just about opposite Carlton & Priors?
BROWN: Yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Do you mind answering, do not nod your head, say yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: She said yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER Do you know both the defendants by sight?
BROWN: Yes.
Have you seen them both in your teashop?
BROWN: Yes.
Together?
BROWN: Yes.
When did you first see them to notice them?
BROWN: On the Friday before the crime was committed.
That would be the 29th September?
BROWN: I am sorry, I do not know the dates.
Well, we know. Did Bywaters first come to your shop alone and was he joined by a young woman who is a witness in this case, Miss Vellender?
BROWN: Yes.
And were they later joined by Mrs Thompson?
BROWN: Yes.
Did you next see Bywaters at your shop on the 2nd October, that is the Monday?
BROWN: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: On the Monday you saw him?
BROWN: Yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Did you see Mrs Thompson there on that day?
BROWN: No.
The next day, Tuesday October 3rd, did you see them?
BROWN: Yes.
And did they leave together?
BROWN: Yes.
On the first day you saw them —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did you know what time of day it was?
BROWN: On the Tuesday, do you mean?
On the Tuesday, yes?
BROWN: They left together, between ten and a quarter past five.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: On the Friday, the first time you noticed Bywaters, did anyone bring him a note?
BROWN: Well, there was one day somebody brought him a note and I think it was the Friday, but I cannot be absolutely certain.
Was it a woman or a man?
BROWN: Well, it was a woman.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
How many employees are there at this Fuller’s shop?
BROWN: Before there were two, now there are three.
What are the busiest times?
BROWN: The busiest time are between twelve and two.
That would be the luncheons?
BROWN: Yes.
How many luncheons do you serve in a day?
BROWN: Not very many sometimes, they vary; sometimes more than others.
What is the most?
BROWN: I cannot say luncheons on their own.
About how many people do you serve during those hours?
BROWN: During the luncheon hours I should think somewhere about 30.
How many customers do you have in at teatime?
BROWN: We do not have very many customers in at teatime at all.
How many teas do you think usually?
BROWN: Not very many.
BROWN: About how many?
BROWN: Somewhere about 20.
AMELIA AUGUSTA LEE Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Your name is Amelia Augusta Lee, and you live at 6 Barrett Road, Wood Street, Walthamstow?
LEE: Yes.
Are you a waitress at Fuller’s in Aldersgate Street?
LEE: Yes.
Did you know these two defendants before this case?
LEE: I remember the man, but not the woman.
Where have you seen the man?
LEE: In the tearoom in Aldersgate Street.
What was the first date you remember seeing him, or day?
LEE: I do not remember any days or dates really.
The day of the week?
LEE: No. It was during a week the early part of the year.
Do you remember the Ilford tragedy?
LEE: Yes.
Was it before that?
LEE: Yes.
Can you remember how many days before?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Early in the year, she says.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I see, that is when you first saw him?
LEE: That is when I first saw him.
Later than that when did you see him?
LEE: On the Friday previous to the murder.
Did you see the man alone then?
LEE: The man came into the shop alone.
Did you see him there with anybody?
LEE: Later he was joined by a young lady.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: That is not the prisoner.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: She does not know; she does not identify the prisoner.
LEE: The lady I know to be Mrs Vellender now.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Did you see him again on the following Monday?
LEE: Yes.
Did you see a lady with him there that day?
LEE: Yes.
Did you see him the next day, the Tuesday?
LEE: Yes.
Was anyone with him then?
LEE: Not when he first came in.
Did someone come in to him?
LEE: Somebody came in after he had sat in the tearoom for about an hour.
Who was that?
LEE: I do not know the lady.
It was a lady?
LEE: But it was not the same lady who had had coffee with him on the Monday.
Not the same lady you had seen but a different one?
LEE: A different one.
What time was it?
LEE: I should think it was between 4 and 5.
How long did they stay there?
LEE: The lady did not sit down, she was fully dressed to go out.
Did they go out together or separately?
LEE: They went out together.
And you think it was between 4 and 5?
LEE: Between 4 and 5.
MR WHITELEY: I have no questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I have no questions.
ROSE JACOBS Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Is your name Rose Jacobs?
JACOBS: Yes.
You live at 60 Stevens Road, West Ham, and you are a single woman?
JACOBS: Yes.
Are you employed at Carlton and Prior’s in Aldersgate Street?
JACOBS: Yes.
Do you know the defendant Mrs Thompson?
JACOBS: Yes.
She used to work there. Now, do you know the man Bywaters?
JACOBS: Yes.
When did you first see him, and where.
JACOBS: I cannot remember the exact date when I first saw him, it was some time back.
Some time back when you first saw him?
JACOBS: Yes.
How many times have you seen him?
JACOBS: Twice.
Did you say twice?
JACOBS: Twice.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Where?
JACOBS: In Aldersgate Street.
At your place?
JACOBS: Yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Will you look at Exhibit No. 9 (handed). That is a note by Mrs Thompson on the firm’s paper, “Come in for me in half an hour, Peidi.” Was that note written in your presence?
JACOBS: Yes.
Who by?
JACOBS: Mrs Thompson.
What did she ask you to do with it?
JACOBS: To take it over and give it to Bywaters.
Where was Bywaters?
JACOBS: In Fullers, opposite the firm.
Did you take it over and give it to him?
JACOBS: Yes.
Do you remember what day of the week that was?
JACOBS: Friday.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It has got a date on it.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: The date is wrong, that is why I am asking about it. It is dated the 30th, Friday was the 29th. I only want to ask you about that. What time of the day was it?
JACOBS: As far as I can remember it was about four to half-past four.
You do not work at Carlton and Prior’s on Saturday afternoons?
JACOBS: No.
So the 30th must be wrong?
JACOBS: Yes.
Friday, you say. Did you see Bywaters waiting outside when you left business that day?
JACOBS: Yes.
After Mrs Thompson was arrested and stopped coming to your place did you find a box in her desk?
JACOBS: Yes.
Just look at it, Exhibit No. 11. Was it locked?
JACOBS: Yes.
It was locked when you found it?
JACOBS: Yes. (Handed)
Was it opened by Inspector Hall in your presence?
JACOBS: Yes.
Were there some letters and cards inside?
JACOBS: Yes.
Did he take possession of them?
JACOBS: Yes.
MR WHITELEY: I have no questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I have no questions.
CHARLES HIGGINS Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Is your name Charles Higgins?
HIGGINS: Yes.
Do you live at 30 Nelson Street City Road, and are you a porter employed by Carlton and Prior?
HIGGINS: Yes.
Do you remember what day it was?
HIGGINS: Well, it was the day before the crime.
That would be Monday would it, the 2nd of October. Just look at Exhibit No. 10 will you (handed).
HIGGINS: That is the one.
Do you see that?
HIGGINS: Yes.
Is that the note you took?
HIGGINS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean it was delivered to you?
HIGGINS: Yes.
Who gave it to you?
HIGGINS: Mrs Thompson.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Yes, my Lord. Was it addressed to anybody?
HIGGINS: No, I was just simply told to take that to a man in a blue overcoat at Aldersgate Railway Station.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Did she describe the man to you?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What are the words of it?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: “Wait till 1, he’s come”.
She told you to take it to a man in a blue overcoat who would be outside Aldersgate Street station?
HIGGINS: Yes.
Did you take it to him?
HIGGINS: Yes.
Do you recognize the man?
HIGGINS: Only just simply by his overcoat.
Can you see him here now?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He took it to a man in a blue overcoat.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: How many notes did you take?
HIGGINS: Two.
Was that the first one or the second?
HIGGINS: Well, I could not exactly say now; it is a long time ago.
How close together were the two notes you took?
HIGGINS: About a quarter of an hour in between.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I have no questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No questions.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: My Lord, might I ask Mrs Bywaters a question. I think this might be a convenient time for her to be recalled.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Certainly.
MRS LILIAN BYWATERS re-called
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Do you remember in August of last year, 1921, your son coming home and having a conversation with you?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
About Mrs Thompson?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes.
What did he ask you?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He was telling me that Mrs Thompson led a very unhappy life with her husband
What did he ask your advice on?
LILIAN BYWATERS: He asked me if I could tell him how she could get a separation.
From her husband?
LILIAN BYWATERS: From her husband.
Did you give him what advice you thought best?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I told him I could not tell him how to get a separation but I said there was no law to compel her to live with a man if she was unhappy with the man.
It was a separation?
LILIAN BYWATERS: Yes; he wanted to know how she could get a separation –
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: She has evidently not read the House of Lords decision.
FURTHER RE-EXAMINED BY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Was that after your son had given up living with Mr and Mrs Thompson?
LILIAN BYWATERS: I believe it was after he left there.
FRANK PAGE Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
You are Detective Inspector Frank Page of New Scotland Yard. Did you on the 4th October go to 11 Westow Street Norwood, where Mrs Bywaters, the mother of Prisoner Bywaters, lives?
PAGE: Yes.
Did you see Mrs Bywaters, the mother, in the evening and in her presence search the bedroom occupied by the Prisoner Bywaters?
PAGE: Yes.
In a case in the bedroom did you find the two documents which are Exhibits 9 and 10, the two notes.
PAGE: Yes.
They are short notes. In a suitcase in the bedroom did you find some letters from Mrs Thompson?
PAGE: I did.
I will ask you the Exhibit numbers; are they Exhibits 28, 47, 54, 58, and 60 in this case?
PAGE: Yes.
Did you find a telegram which is Exhibit No. 58. If you would just look at No. 59; it has not been put in yet (same handed to Witness); does Exhibit 59 appear to be the original telegram of which 58 is a delivered copy?
PAGE: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You say it is from the post office?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You will have to prove the handwriting, I suppose.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: I am calling a witness to prove the handwriting, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It purports to be sent by Graydon, 168 Aldersgate Street. There is nothing improper in Graydon; she was known as Graydon; Graydon, 168 Aldersgate Street is on the back.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Can you tell me how many letters in all, Mrs Thompson’s letters, were found in possession of Bywaters?
PAGE: No, I do not know how many altogether, no.
Do you know if 65 would be about the right number?
PAGE: I could not really say; I have only taken possession of about 10.
I suppose one of the police officers will be able to tell us?
PAGE: Yes, I have never seen the others.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No questions.
ALFRED SCHOLES Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The handwriting of that telegram has already been proved by Mr Carlton your Lordship recollects.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I took it down, but I did not appreciate what the point was.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Alfred Scholes, you are a Detective Inspector of police employed by the Port of London Authority?
SCHOLES: I am.
On the 12th October did you go to the Steamship Morea, which was then lying at Tilbury Docks?
SCHOLES: I did.
And did you go into a cabin where you were shown the ditty box which is here, which is exhibit No. 8? That is so, is it?
SCHOLES: That is the one.
Did you take that box, which was locked, to the police office, and eventually hand it over to Sergeant James?
SCHOLES: I did.
And was that box opened in your presence with a key?
SCHOLES: It was.
As a matter of fact did that box contain a number of letters?
SCHOLES: It did.
They were taken away by Sergeant James?
SCHOLES: Quite right.
In that box, in addition to the letters was there a photograph?
SCHOLES: There was.
A photograph of whom? of
SCHOLES: Of Mrs Thompson.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: No questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No questions.
PERCY JAMES Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Your name is Percy James. Did you on 12th October receive some keys from Inspector Hall?
JAMES: Yes.
And with one of those keys did you open the box which is exhibit 8, lock it again and take it away, and hand it to Inspector Hall?
JAMES: That is so.
The key which opened the box was the one which you got from Inspector Hall?
JAMES: That is correct.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: No questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No questions.
JOHN HANCOCK Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Is your name John Hancock and are you a detective constable?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Did you receive a number of letters from Inspector Hall which you examined and had copied, and put back in the envelopes which they were in?
HANCOCK: I did.
And were a number of newspaper cuttings in some of them, and were the newspaper cuttings put back in the letters in which they were found?
HANCOCK: They were.
On the 9th October did you find this knife which is Exhibit No. 1 (same handed to the witness)?
HANCOCK: I did.
Did you find that in a drain on the north side of Seymour Gardens, Ilford?
HANCOCK: Yes.
About how far from Kensington Gardens, Ilford?
HANCOCK: About 250 yards.
And you handed that to Inspector Hall?
HANCOCK: Yes.
You did not find any sheath, did you?
HANCOCK: No.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is there anything on it to show what manufacture it is; is it an English knife?
HANCOCK: There is a name on it, my Lord, yes.
What is the name?
HANCOCK: John Watts Sheffield England.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Did you receive from the witness, Miss Jacobs, who we know opened the little cash box of Mrs Thompson, three letters?
HANCOCK: Yes
And are those exhibits 14, 30, and 51?
HANCOCK: They are.
They are all letters signed by Bywaters?
HANCOCK: Bywaters.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: These have not been read or referred to yet.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: No, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What period are they going to refer to, will you have them read now?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was wondering which would be the most convenient thing to my learned friends; would they desire to read the whole of these letters. Of course one is entitled to read them as this eyewitness produces them. The objection to that is they rather come out of their order, and I rathe thought my learned friends wished them to come in their proper order.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I still think the jury ought to have them before them when they are read if they could.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: It is most important that they should have them in chronological order.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I think it is; I wish they could have them; it is very difficult. You see they are identified in a certain way. They are in chronological order except certain undated ones. I do not think I can have the order altered, I mean subject to anything you have to say – it is not for me to decide – because otherwise when the jury are asked to turn from 32 to 36 they may be turning backwards; it would be almost impossible.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They would have to be in chronological order.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: By all means. Could it be repaged in red so that we can have the read pages. You see the practical difficulty. It will have to be repaged.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Repaged so that it agrees with the bundle your Lordship has.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes, so that it has both numbers.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Then we will do that.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS (To the witness): Did you search the house at 41 Kensington Gardens?
HANCOCK: Yes.
And there find a bottle which is exhibit 61. Have you got it?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Did you find that in a small drawer in Mr and Mrs Thompson’s bedroom?
HANCOCK: Yes.
And you handed that to Mr Webster, the analyst?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Has it got a label?
HANCOCK: Aromatic tincture of opium, also called Dr Jenkin’s cholera drops, brown.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
You found this knife on the Monday after the man was killed?
HANCOCK: On the 9th, yes.
The Monday after?
HANCOCK: Yes.
It was the early morning of the 4th, and you found it on the following Monday?
HANCOCK: That is so.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
How many letters did you find altogether?
HANCOCK: About 50.
Is not the number 65?
HANCOCK: I have counted about 62 including telegrams; I have only just counted them.
I suggest to you – I have also made enquiry about it – that altogether there are 65 letters which were found written by Mrs Thompson to Bywaters?
HANCOCK: I will not dispute that.
And of those 65 letters which were found, 32 have been put in as Exhibits in this case?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Leaving, therefore, 33 letters which have not been exhibited?
HANCOCK: That would be so, yes.
Now we have had our attention drawn to certain enclosures in some of those letters. Am I right in saying that altogether in the different letters there were some 50 enclosures, cuttings from newspapers?
HANCOCK: Yes.
And cuttings referring to a variety of subjects?
HANCOCK: Yes.
And of those 50 cuttings am I right in saying that about 10 refer to cases which were more or less in the public eye at the time?
HANCOCK: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What kind of case do you mean?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Cases where inquests were being held; the ones which have been produced in this case?
HANCOCK: Yes, referring to deaths.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The 10 are all those produced?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, the ones that have been produced.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Cases in the public eye have very often nothing to do with the present case.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No, my Lord, but these were cases which were more or less before the public at the time?
HANCOCK: Yes, they were.
Have you got a list of the names of the cuttings?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Have you got it with you?
HANCOCK: Yes.
I just want to go through it.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean the whole lot?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is that exhibited?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No, my Lord, perhaps a copy of it might be put in. Whilst it is being found I will just take you through it.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a list of the cuttings I understand my learned friend is going through?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I will have it sooner or later. You might hand it up now (Document handed to his Lordship).
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Is this the first one?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Who is going to put this in; I have got to keep a record. Will you put it in, Mr Solicitor?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not object to putting it in at all. I will put it in if my learned friend desires.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: In this case, as my learned friend is appearing for the Prosecution, I have no last word in any event, so it does not really matter whether I put it in or not.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not know whether it will be exercised in this case. At any rate, what is the number of this exhibit?
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: 70. My Lord.
THE WITNESS: I have not an identical list to yours; I have one of mine which I made up.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I am reading (so that you will be able to follow it) from a list which has been supplied to me by the police. Have you got a copy of that because then I will get it in the same order?
HANCOCK: I have one supplied by the Director of Public Prosecutions; I think it will be the same.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: At some time or another a copy must be put in for the Records.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, my Lord. (To the Witness). Now the first one on this list is one which has been put in, “The Poisoned Curate” from “The Daily Sketch” of the 8th February of this year?
HANCOCK: Yes.
The second is “Curate’s Household of Three”, that is from “The Daily Sketch” of the 9th February of this year?
HANCOCK: Yes.
That is the Dr Wallis, is not it?
HANCOCK: That is so.
Both of those refer to Dr Wallis?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Then the next one is “Helping the Doctor” from “The Daily Sketch” of same date?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have got a different one handed up. I have got “The Poisoned Curate”; “University Mystery, Two poisoned”.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: “University Mystery” is a long way down on my list but I am coming to it.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have not seen this list; your Lordship’s is a full one.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is going in.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I can get it in this way.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not mind in the least but I have no doubt it is only re-arranged.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: In this list they have arranged them with the different newspapers instead of in chronological order. (To the Witness) Just follow whether it is on the list, “Helping the Doctor”; the third one, is that right?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Those three have been produced?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Now the next one, “Women who hate all men”; that has not been produced?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Then “Do men like red-haired women”; that has not been produced?
HANCOCK: No.
Then “Drugs for brother in hospital”, that has been produced?
HANCOCK: You are leaving out some.
No, not in my list; I do not want to leave out anything because I want the jury to get the whole effect of this.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: How many have you got altogether?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I think it is 50; I am not quite certain.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have got 46.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: That may be right; I have not counted them up. I will come to the one that I have read out; do you find “Drugs for brother in hospital”?
HANCOCK: Yes.
That has been produced?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Then “Event of the Season”, that has been produced?
HANCOCK: No.
Then “Battle of calves and ankles”, that has not been produced.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “Battle of” what?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: “Calves and ankles”, my Lord.
HANCOCK: Yes.
No copy of that in the bundle of Exhibits?
HANCOCK: No
Then “Patient killed by overdose”, that has been produced?
HANCOCK: Yes.
And “Girl’s drug injection”, that has been produced?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Then “Fuel control and love-making”, whatever that may mean, that has not been produced?
HANCOCK: No.
Then “Holiday death pact”, that had been produced?
HANCOCK: Yes.
“Flat Mystery” not produced; “Their married life” not produced; “Rather the devil for father” not produced; “Defence in disputed baby case” not produced; “Crimes against love” not produced; and then “Chicken broth death” which has been produced?
HANCOCK: Yes.
“Poisoned Chocolates” that has been produced; then “Do Women dislike the truth” not produced; then “Does courtship cost too much’ not produced; “Do Women fail as friends” not produced; “Advent of loveless women” not produced; “University Mystery” that has been produced; “False friendship” not produced; “An ideal love letter” not produced; “Women on the rack” that has been produced; “Women who always act” not produced; “Girl’s death riddle” that has been produced; ”Men and marriage” not produced; “Masterful men”; “Winning Her, Winning Him”; “Asking her twice”; “July marriages”; “The wedding season”; “Keeping her”; “What does she do with him”; “Do not marry a genius”; “Dangerous Women”; “Woman the Consoler”; “The Ideal Dance Partner” and “The best wine that I have drunk”?
HANCOCK: Yes
That is the entire list of cuttings which were sent in these letters?
HANCOCK: That is so.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Now let us put in yours, Sir Henry, and mark it.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That will take the place in your Lordship’s.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It does not much matter; it is generally the same.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Now the little bottle which has been produced containing aromatic tincture of opium you found that, did you, in the small drawer in the chest of drawers in the bedroom which was occupied by both Mr and Mrs. Thompson?
HANCOCK: Yes.
Was that the drawer in which Mr Thompson’s kept his collars and ties? Did you see collars and ties?
HANCOCK: Not in that drawer, no.
What did you see in the drawer?
HANCOCK: Envelopes, notepaper, photographs and gloves.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean was it his drawer or her drawer; do you know?
HANCOCK: I could not say whose drawer it was; there was not anybody particular used it.
Perhaps they would show whether they were ladies’ or gentlemen’s clothes?
HANCOCK: I cannot say.
RICHARD SELLARS Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
Is your name Richard Sellars?
SELLARS: Yes.
You are a clerk in the General Post Office. Do you produce here from the custody of the postmaster General Exhibit 47, which is an original telegram and Exhibit 59, which is an original telegram. Just look at 48 and 58 at the same time (Same handed to Witness. Looking at 47, the telegram addressed to Bywaters, Tilbury Dock, is Exhibit 48 apparently the delivered copy?
SELLARS: Yes, it is.
If you will look at 59, which is an original telegram addressed to Bywaters “Morea” Tilbury Docks, is 58 the delivered copy of that?
SELLARS: Yes.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I have no questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I have no questions
FRANCIS HALL Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS [1]
Is your name Francis Hall?
HALL: Yes.
You are a Divisional Detective Inspector of Police, K Division?
HALL: Yes.
At 11 o’clock on the morning of the 4th October did you see Mrs Thompson at her house, 41 Kensington Gardens, Ilford?
HALL: I did.
What did you say to her?
HALL: I said, “I am an Inspector of Police; I understand you were with your husband early this morning in Belgrave Road. I am satisfied he was assaulted and stabbed several times.” She said “We were coming along Belgrave Road and just past the corner of Endsleigh Gardens when I heard him call out ‘Oh er’, and he fell up against me. I put out my arms to save him and found blood which I thought was coming from his mouth. I tried to hold him up. He staggered for several yards towards Kensington Gardens and then fell against the wall and slid down. He did not speak to me; I cannot say if I spoke to him. I felt him and found his clothing wet with blood. He never moved after he fell. We had no quarrel on the way; we were quite happy together. Immediately I saw blood I ran across the road to a doctor’s. I appealed to a lady and gentleman who were passing and the gentleman also went to the doctor’s. The doctor came and told me my husband was dead. Just before he fell down I was walking on his right-hand side on the inside of the pavement nearest the wall. We were side by side. I did not see anybody about at the time. My husband and I were talking about going to a dance”.
At that time what was her condition?
HALL: Agitated.
Taking things in chronological order, on the evening of the same day, about 7 o’clock did you see Bywaters at Ilford police station?
HALL: Yes.
And took possession of the overcoat which he was wearing, which is the one which has been produced?
HALL: Yes.
Did you see Mrs Thompson again a little later in the same day after she had made that first statement to you?
HALL: Yes.
And afterwards you took her to Ilford police station?
HALL: Yes.
On the next day, the 5th October, did you speak to her again?
HALL: Yes.
What did you say?
HALL: I asked her if she would give me any further information regarding her husband’s assailant. She said “I will tell you all I possibly can.” She made a voluntary statement which was typewritten, read, and signed.
Will you look at exhibit No. 3. Is that the statement which she signed in your presence (handed) ?
HALL: Yes.
A voluntary statement?
HALL: Yes.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Perhaps that should be read again, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes, I think so.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: I will read my copy: “Edith Jessie Thompson, 41 Kensington Gardens, Ilford, age 28, married, states: My husband’s name is Percy Thompson. He is a shipping clerk employed by Messrs. O. J. Parker & Co., Peel House, Eastcheap, E.C. I am employed by Carlton & Prior, millinery manufacturers, 168 Aldersgate Street, E.C., as a bookkeeper. We have been married six years and have no family. We were married in the beginning of the year 1916. In that year my husband joined the London Scottish Regiment; he was discharged as medically unfit a few months later and did no foreign service.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Now at this stage of the proceedings the jury ought to understand this principle. A statement made and signed by one prisoner, and not given on oath, is not evidence against another prisoner. You must not take this into consideration against Bywaters at all. I want you to understand when there are letters written to him they are only evidence against her. Letters written by the other, or statements made by the other, are only evidence against them, but not evidence against one another.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The statement goes on: “I have always been on affectionate terms with my husband, I remember Tuesday, 3rd October, 1922. We both went to our respective businesses that day. I met my husband by appointment at a quarter to six, in Aldersgate Street, that day, we went to the Criterion Theatre, we there met my uncle and aunt, Mr and Mrs J. Laxton, we left the Theatre about 11 p.m., we all four went to the Piccadilly Circus Tube, we there separated, my husband and I went to Liverpool Street, and we caught the 11.30 train to Ilford, we arrived at Ilford about 12 o’clock, we then proceeded along York Road, Belgrave Road and when we got between De Vere and Endsleigh Gardens, (we were walking on the right hand side) my husband suddenly went into the roadway, I went after him, and he fell up against me, and called out ”oo-er.” He was staggering, he was bleeding, and I thought that the blood was coming from his mouth. I cannot remember whether I saw anyone else there or not. I know there was none there when he staggered up against me. I got hold of my husband with both hands and assisted him to get up against the wall. He stood there for about a minute or two and then slid down on to the footway, he never spoke, I fell on the ground with him, I cannot remember if I shouted out, or not. I got up off the ground and ran along to Courtland Avenue, with the intention of calling Dr. Maudsley, but on the way I met a lady and a gentleman and I said to them something to this effect, “Can I get a doctor or help me, my husband is ill.” The gentleman said, “I will go for the doctor.” Dr. Maudsley arrived shortly after”.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: “I waited with the lady while the gentleman went for the doctor”. Then it goes on “Dr Maudsley” —
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: “Dr. Maudsley arrived shortly after although it seemed a long time. The doctor examined my husband and said that he was dead. An ambulance was sent for and the body was removed. I was accompanied to my home by two Police Officers.
I know Freddy Bywaters, I have known him for several years; we were at school together, at least I wasn’t but my two brothers were. He is residing with his widowed mother at 11 Westow St., Norwood. He is a ship’s writer and periodically goes away to sea: He has been for a very long time on visiting terms with my family. In June, 1921, Bywaters came to reside with my husband and myself at No. 41 Kensington Gardens. He came as a paying guest. I think he paid 25s. or 27s. 6d. per week. He was with us up to the beginning of August, 1921. I remember August Bank Holiday, 1921. My husband and I quarrelled about something, he struck me. I knocked a chair over. Freddy came in and interfered on my behalf. I left the room and I do not know what transpired between them. As far as my recollection goes, Freddy left on the following Friday, but before he left my husband and he were friends again. We have been in the habit of corresponding with one another. His letters to me and mine to him were couched in affectionate terms. I am not in possession of any letters he writes to me. I have destroyed all as is customary with me with all my correspondence. The letters shewn to me by Inspector Hall and addressed to Mr F. Bywaters are some of the letters that I wrote to Freddy, and were written to him without my husband’s consent. When he was at home in England, we were in the habit of going out occasionally together without my husband’s knowledge
This statement has been read over to me; it is voluntary and it is true.”
After she had made that statement did you and she leave the room in which you then were?
HALL: Yes
And did you take her to the Matron’s room at the police station?
HALL: Yes.
In so doing did you pass the library in the police station?
HALL: Yes.
And was Bywaters in fact being detained in the library?
HALL: Yes.
Did she see him as she passed?
HALL: Yes.
What did she say?
HALL: She said “Oh, God; oh, God, what can I do; why did he do it; I did not want him to do it.” She further said almost immediately after “I must tell the truth.” She was a little hysterical, and I said, “You realise what you are saying; what you might say may be used in evidence.”
Did she then proceed to make a statement?
HALL: Yes.
Which again was written down?
HALL: Yes.
And did she sign it?
HALL: Yes.
That is exhibit No. 4 (same handed)?
HALL: Yes. This statement is: “When we got near Endsleigh Gardens a man rushed out from the Gardens and knocked me away and pushed me away from my husband. I was dazed for a moment.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Knocked me away and pushed me away. A man rushed out from the Gardens and knocked me away and pushed me away from my husband.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: I was dazed for a moment. When I recovered I saw my husband scuffling with a man. The man who I know as Freddy Bywaters was running away. He was wearing a blue overcoat and a grey hat. I knew it was him although I did not see his face.
After taking Bywaters’ coat from him was that coat examined by Dr. Drought?
HALL: Yes.
And after he had examined it, did you speak in that subject to the prisoner Bywaters?
HALL: Yes.
What did you say?
HALL: I said to Bywaters “We shall detain you and retain possession of your overcoat.” He said “Why, I know nothing about it”, he commenced to speak further and I said “If you wish to make a statement it will be better to put it in writing.” I cautioned him and he made a statement, which he signed.
Was that Exhibit No. 5 (handed)? Was that signed in your presence?
HALL: Yes.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Frederick Edward Francis Bywaters, 11 Westow Street Upper Norwood, age 20, Laundry Steward, states: I have known Mr Percy Thompson for about four years and his wife Edith for about five years. Mr Thompson is a shipping clerk; his wife is in a millinery business, and they reside at 41 Kensington Gardens, Ilford. I stayed with them from June 18th, 1921 to the 1st August, 1921. The first week that I was there, I was there as their guest and the remaining weeks I paid 25s. per week. The cause of my leaving was that Mr Thompson quarrelled with Mrs Thompson and threw her across the room. I thought it was a very unmanly thing to do and I interfered. We had a quarrel and he asked me to leave, and I left. I had always been exceedingly good friends with Mrs Thompson. I was also on visiting terms with the mother of Mrs Thompson, a Mrs Graydon, who resides with her husband and family at 231 Shakespeare Crescent, Manor Park. After I left Mrs Thompson I went back to reside with my mother at my present address. On the 7th September, 1921, I got a position as writer on board the s.s. “MoreHALL:” I sailed on the 9th September and returned to England the end of the following month. Shortly after I came back from the voyage I called on Mr and Mrs Thompson at their address. Mrs Thompson received me quite friendly, Mr Thompson a little coldly, but we parted as friends. The same evening I called on Mrs Graydon and I there again saw Mr and Mrs Thompson, who were visiting her. I have never called upon Mr and Mrs Thompson since that time. I have met them once or twice at Mrs Graydon’s since, the last time being in June last. Since that date I have never seen Mr Thompson. I have met Mrs Thompson. On several occasions since and always by appointment. They were verbal appointments. On Monday last I met her by appointment at 12.30 at Aldersgate Street. We went to lunch at the Queen Anne’s Restaurant, Cheapside. After lunch she returned to business and I have not seen her since. Mr Thompson was not aware of all our meetings, but some of them he was. I have known for a very long time past that she had led a very unhappy life with him. This is also known to members of Mrs Thompson’s family. I have written to her on two occasions. I signed the letters Freddy and I addressed her as “Dear Edie.” On the evening of Monday, 2nd October, I called on Miss Graydon and stayed there till about 10 o’clock. I never mentioned the fact that I had lunched with Mrs Thompson that day, and as far as I know Mr Thompson was not aware of it. I left my home yesterday morning about a quarter to twelve. I was dressed in the same clothes that I am now wearing. I went up West and remained there until the evening. I was alone and never met anyone that I knew. I then went to Mrs Graydon’s, arriving there about 7. I left about 11 o’clock, rny impression is that it had gone 11 . Before leaving I remember Mrs Graydon’s daughter Avis saying that Percy (Mr Thompson) had ’phoned her up, and I gathered from the observations she made that he was taking his wife to a theatre that night and that there was other members of the family going. When I left the house I went through Browning Road, into Sibley Glove, to East Ham Railway Station. I booked to Victoria which is my usual custom. I caught a train at 11.30 p.m. and I arrived at Victoria about 12 30 a.m. I then discovered that the last train to Gypsy Hill had gone; it leaves at 12.10 a.m. I had a few pounds in money with me but I decided to walk. I went by way of Vauxhall Road, and Vauxhall Bridge, Kennington, Brixton, turning to the left into Dulwich, and then on to the Crystal Palace, and from there to my address at Upper Norwood, arriving there about 3 a.m. I never noticed either ’bus or tram going in my direction. On arriving home I let myself in with a latchkey and went straight to my bedroom. My mother called out to me. She said, “Is that you, Mick?” I replied, “Yes,” and then went to bed. I got up about 9 a.m. and about 12 I left home with my mother. I left my mother in Paternoster Row about half past two. I stayed in the City till about 5. I then went by train from Mark Lane to East Ham, and from there went on to Mrs Graydon’s, arriving there about six. The first time that I learned that Mr Thompson had been killed was when I bought a newspaper in Mark Lane before I got into the train to go to East Ham. I am never in the habit of carrying a knife. In fact I have never had one. I never met a single person that I knew from the time that I left Mrs Graydon’s house until I arrived home. Mrs Thompson has written to me two or three times. I might have received one letter from her at home. The others I have received on board ship. I have destroyed these letters. She used to address me as “Dear Freddy “and signed herself “Peidi.” I occupy the back bedroom on the top floor at my address, and that is where I keep all my clothing. When I said that I was dressed in precisely the same clothing yesterday as I am to-day, I meant it to include my undergarments, with the exception of my collar and handkerchief, which are at home.
This statement has been read over to me, is voluntary and is true.
Having made some further inquiries, on the evening of the 5th October did you see Bywaters again?
HALL: I did.
What did you say to him?
HALL: I said to him “I am going charge you and Mrs Thompson with the wilful murder of Percy Thompson”, he said, “Why her, Mrs Thompson was not aware of my movements”. I said “If you wish to say anything I will take it down in writing”. I again cautioned him. He made a statement, which I read to him, and he signed.
Will you look at Exhibit No. 6. Is that the statement which you refer to, signed by him (handed)?
HALL: Yes.
It is dated 5th October. Frederick Bywaters states, “I wish to make a voluntary statement. Mrs Edith Thompson was not aware of my movements on Tuesday night, 2nd October. I left Manor Park at 11 p.m. and proceeded to Ilford. I waited for Mrs Thompson and her husband. When near Endsleigh Gardens I pushed her to one side, also pushing him further up the street. I said to him, “You have got to separate from your wife. ” He said, ‘‘No.” I said, “You will have to.” We struggled. I took my knife from my pocket and we fought and he got the worst of it. Mrs Thompson must have been spellbound for I saw nothing of her during the fight. I ran away through Endsleigh Gardens, through Wanstead, Leytonstone, Stratford; got a taxi at Stratford to Aldgate, walked from there to Fenchurch Street, got another taxi to Thornton Heath. Then walked to Upper Norwood, arriving home about 3 a.m. The reason I fought with Thompson was because he never acted like a man to his wife. He always seemed several degrees lower than a snake. I loved her and I could not go on seeing her leading that life. I did not intend to kill him. I only meant to injure him. I gave him an opportunity of standing up to me as a man but he wouldn’t. I have had the knife some time; it was a sheath knife. I threw it down a drain when I was running through Endsleigh Gardens.”
Later the two prisoners were charged together with the murder of Percy Thompson?
HALL: Yes.
When the charge was made did either of them say anything?
HALL: Thompson made no reply, Bywaters said “It’s wrong, it is wrong”.
Did you receive on 12th October a ditty box, No. 8, from Sergeant James?
HALL: Yes.
And from whom did you get the key?
HALL: From the prisoner.
Who gave you the key which opened the box, do you remember?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He said the prisoner.
HALL: Yes, the prisoner.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: I did not hear what you said. From the prisoner Bywaters?
HALL: Yes.
Did you receive from Inspector Page of New Scotland Yard a number of letters?
HALL: Yes.
Which he has mentioned finding?
HALL: And did you receive from Sergeant Hancock a number of letters?
HALL: Yes.
Just to give the numbers of the exhibits which you received from one or other of those two persons who found them; are they 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, and a Marconigram, 69?
HALL: Yes
There were three other letters which were found by Inspector Hall [sic while addressing Hall], or rather given by the detective to Inspector Hall [sic], 14, 30, and 31, letters written by Bywaters. They were also handed to you, were they?
HALL: Yes.
He gave them to you?
HALL: Yes, I was in the room when they were given.
Have you seen Bywaters write?
HALL: I have.
Havre you examined the three letters which are Exhibits 14, 30, and 31?
HALL: Yes.
Have you them before you (handed). To the best of your belief are those in the handwriting of Bywaters?
HALL: Yes.
In the ditty box, in addition to the other letters which have been mentioned did you find this slip of paper, which is Exhibit 57 (handed)?
HALL: Yes.
It contains a list of troy weights?
HALL: Yes.
60 milligrammes one grain, 18 grains one gramme, 30 grammes 1 ounce troy weight.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is that in his handwriting too?
HALL: Yes
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: With regard to the letters found in Bywaters’s possession from Mrs Thompson, there is no address is there on any of them?
HALL: No
No address of the sender?
HALL: No.
I am speaking of the letters written by Mrs Thompson to Bywaters?
HALL: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Bywaters was taken to the Ilford police station on the evening of October 4th?
HALL: Correct.
Were you in sole charge of this case or was there any other officer concerned?
HALL: Superintendent Wensley came down but I was practically in sole charge of it.
Superintendent Wensley is the head at Scotland Yard, is he not?
HALL: That is so, Area Superintendent.
He came down and you and he were engaged in the investigation of this case?
HALL: Yes.
May I take it that he was present with you at every interview you had with Bywaters?
HALL: No
Was he present with you me when he gave what is called the two voluntary statements, exhibits 5 and 6?.
HALL: Yes, the long statements.
There are two statements of Bywaters which have been put it, Exhibits 5 and 6?
HALL: No. Of course I cannot remember the number of the Exhibit.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You had better look at it. There is a long one and a short one.
MR WHITELEY: No. 5 is the long one and 6 is the short one (handed).
HALL: He was not present when I took Exhibit No. 6.
The second one?
HALL: The second one, yes.
He was present when you took Exhibit No. 5?
HALL: Yes.
Exhibit 5 was taken on the evening of October 4th?
HALL: Yes.
At that time no written statement had been made and taken of Mrs Thompson?
HALL: No.
When Bywaters was brought to the station in the evening of the 4thyou and Wensley were there and you both saw Bywaters?
HALL: Yes.
How were you and Wensley in the company of Bywaters that evening?
HALL: About an hour and a half.
An hour and a half?
HALL: Yes.
And at what period of that hour and a half that statement taken?
HALL: Well, the majority of that period.
What?
HALL: Practically the whole of that period.
It took an hour and a half, did it?
HALL: Yes, about, I say about — about an hour and a half.
When you and Wensley came in to see Bywaters was a typist brought in with you?
HALL: Yes
Superintendent Wensley, Inspector Hall and a typist all came into the room?
HALL: Yes.
You do not suggest that that was a statement dictated by Bywaters?
HALL: Practically.
Dictated?
HALL: Practically.
Consecutively?
HALL: No, practically dictated by Bywaters. He wished to make a statement and I said we would take it down in writing.
No questions asked?
HALL: Yes.
Is it not clear from the statement itself that questions were put to him, and his answers are incorporated in that statement?
HALL: Not wholly, practically.
Who asked him the questions?
HALL: Both Mr Wensley and myseIf.
Both of you?
HALL: Yes
And what times was it when you left Bywaters?
HALL: About half-past eight, a little later than that; it was roughly about nine o’clock.
9 o’clock?
HALL: Yes.
Did either of you see him again that evening. Just think?
HALL: I do not think so, I do not remember seeing him again.
Where did he sleep that evening?
HALL: I believe he slept in the library.
Was that the room in which the statement was taken?
HALL: Yes – not the first statement.
I am talking about Exhibit No. 5?
HALL: No, it is not the room; there was another room
He was taken back to the library was he?
HALL: Yes.
And what was the last you saw of him?
HALL: I believe when he was taken back to the library.
Now we come to the next day, October 5th. You took a statement from Mrs Thompson?
HALL: Yes.
Exhibit 3. What time of the day was that taken (handed)?
HALL: About 3 o’clock.
About 3 o’clock in the afternoon?
HALL: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is this Exhibit?
MR WHITELEY: No. 3 my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is the lady’s statement on the 5th?
HALL: Yes, my Lord.
MR WHITELEY: What time was it when the second statement of Mrs Thompson was taken, Exhibit 4 (handed)?
HALL: About half-past four to a quarter to five.
And was it before those two statements that Mrs Thompson saw Bywaters and said “Why did he do it; I did not want him to do it”?
HALL: Yes, after she was returning from the room where she was taken; from what they term the C.I.D. room to the Matron’s room.
Was Superintendent Wensley there?
HALL: When she said that? no.
Was he at the station that afternoon?
HALL: Yes.
Were any steps taken by the police to prevent these two from seeing each other?
HALL: No.
And having got this statement, Exhibit No. 4 from Mrs Thompson after seeing Bywaters, the statement then is taken of Bywaters, Exhibit 6, is that right?
HALL: I cannot tell you exact number, if you please.
I thought you had got them all in front of you?
HALL: No.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: They are the two statements. Take the lady’s statement.
MR WHITELEY: 3 and 4 are the two statements of Mrs Thompson and 5 and 6 are the two statements of Bywaters?
HALL: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Repeat your question.
MR WHITELEY: It is after Mrs Thompson had seen Bywaters and after she had made the statement Exhibit No. 4 that you go back into Bywaters’s room, wherever he was, and the statement Exhibit No. 6 is taken?
HALL: Yes.
And might we take it that the typist accompanied you?
HALL: No.
Then how was that taken?
HALL: It was written; I wrote it myself.
You wrote it yourself?
HALL: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Which one is that?
HALL: Exhibit 6, my Lord.
That is Bywaters’s second statement?
HALL: Yes, my Lord.
MR WHITELEY: Before that statement was taken you told him that you were going to charge him and Mrs Thompson with this crime?
HALL: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did you know by that time that he had seen that she was there too?
HALL: Yes, my Lord.
MR WHITELEY: To get it quite clear they saw one another; they must see one another if you took one past the library I think, where he was?
HALL: Yes, he was at the window or standing close to the window.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I did not gather that you knew they were in the same room. The question has not been asked. You think each knew that the other was there?
HALL: Yes, my Lord, she turned her head and at once said “My God!, My God!”
You told us that she caught sight of him, but nobody has told us that he caught sight of her. Do you know if he did?
HALL: I could not say, because my attention was centred in [sic] her.
MR WHITELEY Have you any doubt Bywaters had not seen Mrs Thompson?
HALL: I certainly think he did. I cannot say positively he did. Of course I was not looking at Bywaters, although I saw him. I could not take particular notice of him because my attention was centred in her.
Having taken the second statement from Mrs Thompson and having come back to Bywaters, you then, before you took Exhibit No. 6 said you were going to charge him and Mrs Thompson with the murder.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is quite another matter. Whether he had seen her there at the police station or whether he was merely told that they were going to charge her.
MR WHITELEY No doubt they had seen one another, and the very first thing he said, directly you said that both of them were going to be charged was “Why her, Mrs Thompson was not aware of my movements”?
HALL: Yes.
And when you charged them both together that evening Bywaters said “It’s wrong, it’s wrong”?
HALL: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
Just see if I have got it correctly as what you did with Mrs Thompson. You first of all saw her at 11 o’clock in the morning of the 4thOctober?
HALL: Yes.
That was the morning after Mr Thompson had died?
HALL: Yes, the same morning.
Yes, later on in the same morning?
HALL: Yes.
And at that time she made the statement to you which you took a note of in your notebook?
HALL: Yes.
And at that time she had no knowledge as far as I know that any enquiries were being made as regards Bywaters?
HALL: Oh no.
In that first statement which you took down in your notebook she said nothing at all, did she, about anybody having knocked her aside or pushed her aside?
HALL: No.
Now that statement having been taken at 11 o’clock on the 4th October, on that same morning did you ask her to come to the police station?
HALL: I did.
Was she then kept at the police station there from twelve o’clock upon the 4th until the afternoon of the 5th?
HALL: Yes.
And in the afternoon of the 5th did you take from her the statement which is exhibit No. 3, the long statement?
HALL: Yes.
Now I want to get it clear. At that time as far as you know she had no knowledge that Bywaters was at the station?
HALL: I could not say, but I should not think so.
You had not told her?
HALL: I had not told her.
Nobody had told her as far as you know?
HALL: No, but I gleaned that she did on account of the letters.
What?
HALL: I gleaned that she did on account of the letters. The letters were on the table where we took the statement, and she must have known on account of Bywaters’ letters.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did she see her own letters to Bywaters?
HALL: She identified them, my Lord.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: She identifies them in the statement, exhibit No. 3?
HALL: Yes, that is so.
How long did that statement take?
HALL: About an hour and a half.
That seems to be the regular time. Now that statement having been taken was she conducted past the room where Bywaters was being detained?
HALL: She had to go past that room to get to the matron’s room.
As you told my friend, no effort of course was made so that they should not see each other; she is taken past where he is?
HALL: Yes, the same room.
And directly she saw Bywaters there she said this, did not she “Oh, God; Oh, God, what can I do; why did he do it; I did not want him to do it”; and then almost immediately afterwards “I must tell the truth”?
HALL: Yes.
And then it was that having said “I must tell the truth ” you cautioned her, and then she said “When we got near Endsleigh Gardens a man rushed out from the Gardens and knocked me away – pushed me away, from my husband, I was dazed for a moment. When I recovered I saw my husband scuffling with a man. The man who I knew as Freddy Bywaters was running away. He was wearing a blue overcoat and a grey hat. I knew it was him although I did not see his face”. That is right?
HALL: Correct.
So that directly she had in fact seen that Bywaters was at the station she then made this second statement?
HALL: Yes.
LEONARD WILLIAMS Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Your name is Leonard Williams?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
You are a detective of K. Division. On the 6th October did you take the prisoner Bywaters and certain property from Ilford to Stratford Police Court.
WILLIAMS: I did.
When at the Court did he say something to you?
WILLIAMS: Yes, he did.
What did he say?
WILLIAMS: He said, pointing to the property, “Have you a knife there”. I said “No”. He said, “Have they found it”. I said “I do not think so”. He said, “I told them I ran up Endsleigh Gardens, but come to think of it after I did it I ran forward along Belgrave Road towards Wanstead Park, turned up a road to the right. I am not sure whether it was Kensington Gardens where they lived or the next road. I then crossed over to the left side of the road, and just before I got to the top of Cranbrook Road end I put the knife down a drain; it should easily be found”.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: No questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No questions.
HENRY WILLIAM FORSTER Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Is your name Henry William Forster?
FORSTER: Yes
Do you live at 66 Goddard Road, Elmers End, Beckenham, and are you a director of Osborne & Co., tool merchants, 165 and 166 Aldersgate Street?
FORSTER: That is right.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMANN: How does that lie as regards 168?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: How does that lie as regards 168 Carlton & Prior’s?
FORSTER: There is an Avenue separates the two buildings.
Can carts go along it?
FORSTER: Yes, certainly; they cannot go through; they can go into the cul-de-sac.
Otherwise is No.168 next to it?
FORSTER: Yes, otherwise.
Will you please look at this knife, exhibit No.1 (same handed to the witness). Do you sell at your shop knives identical with that?
FORSTER: We do.
What is the price of them?
FORSTER: 6/- [6s]
What are they in fact?
FORSTER: I am sorry I could not hear.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Are they sold like that or in a sheath or what?
FORSTER: They are sold in a leather sheath.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: They are called hunting knives, are not they?
FORSTER: A hunting knife we call it.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
How long has your firm carried on business at this number in Aldersgate Street?
FORSTER: At that particular number?
Or in Aldersgate Street at all?
FORSTER: A matter of about seventeen years.
And during that time they have been selling knives and other things of that sort?
FORSTER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Can you tell at all by looking at that how long you had it or when you sold it?
FORSTER: Yes, it was sometime during the war, but the exact time I could not tell you, my Lord.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No questions.
RE-EXAMINED BY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Do you mean bought by your firm for the purpose of retail during the war?
FORSTER: It was, yes.
And you are not able to say when they were sold or disposed of?
FORSTER: Oh, not a bit.
CHARLES CALDWELL TAYLOR Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR ROLAND OLIVER
Is your name Charles Caldwell Taylor?
TAYLOR: Yes.
You are a Detective Sergeant of the Salford Police?
TAYLOR: Yes.
Did you attend the Manchester November Handicap on 26th November 1921?
TAYLOR: Yes.
Was a horse called “Welsh Woman” running on that date?
TAYLOR: Yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: This is for the purpose of fixing the date of Exhibit 27, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is another question here. I do not know whether the Manchester Handicap proves the letter or not.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I think it does, my Lord, because there is January 7th which is referred to. (To the Witness) Did “Welsh Woman” run in the Manchester Cup last May, 1922?
TAYLOR: No.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: No?
TAYLOR: No.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: No questions.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No questions.
JOHN WEBSTER Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS
You are of St. Mary’s Hospital. Are you the Senior Official Analyst to the Home Office?
WEBSTER: I am.
Di you receive on the 11th October the overcoat which is before you now, Bywaters’ overcoat, Exhibit 29?
WEBSTER: I did.
Did you examine it for the presence of blood upon it?
WEBSTER: I did.
Did you find a large number of areas which you marked and examined?
WEBSTER: I did.
Were they stains?
WEBSTER: Yes.
How many of those in your opinion were stains of human blood?
WEBSTER: Shall I give the numbers that I have marked which give them?
If you like, yes.
WEBSTER: Those that were marked 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 17 gave reactions for human blood.
WEBSTER: That is, 9 separate stains?
WEBSTER: That is so.
Were some of those traces on the right sleeve of the coat?
WEBSTER: They were.
Some on the left sleeve of the coat?
WEBSTER: Yes.
One on the right pocket of the coat?
WEBSTER: Yes.
Did you also examined the knife, which is Exhibit No.1? (Same handed to Witness).
WEBSTER: I did.
Did you find anything upon that in your opinion was blood?
WEBSTER: Yes, there were several areas which gave reactions for blood both on the handle and on the blade.
Can you say whether that was human blood or not?
WEBSTER:, No, I cannot.
Why is that?
WEBSTER: Well, it was present in very small amount only; traces not sufficient for me to say.
Did you on the 4th November receive from Dr. Spilsbury some bottles and jars which contained some of the organs of the deceased Mr. Thompson.
WEBSTER: I did.
Did you find in any of them any poison?
WEBSTER: In the liver and kidneys I found a small trace of an alkaloid, giving a reaction for morphine.
Would you look at the bottle which is Exhibit 61, “Aromatic Tincture of Opium”; does that contain morphine?
WEBSTER: It does.
What would that be used for, that Aromatic Tincture of Opium?
WEBSTER: That would be used as a sedative for killing pain.
A thing that anybody might properly have in use?
WEBSTER: Yes.
Would that, assuming that the deceased did use it, account for traces of morphine that you found in the liver and kidneys?
WEBSTER: That would depend, of course, as to when it was taken.
Assuming some was taken within a day or two of death?
WEBSTER: it is possible that a minute trace would be found.
I want to ask you with regard to some matters which were mentioned in the letters. I will ask you this question: is hyoscine a poison?
WEBSTER: Yes.
Cocaine?
WEBSTER: Yes.
Potassium cyanide?
WEBSTER: Yes
Sodium antimony tartarate?
WEBSTER: Yes
Bichloride of mercury?
WEBSTER: Digitalin?
WEBSTER: Yes.
You are not a doctor, are you?
WEBSTER: No, I am not.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Dr. Spilsbury is coming.
CROSS EXAMINED BY SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT.
A bottle of aromatic tincture of opium is quite an ordinary thing, is not it?
WEBSTER: Yes.
WEBSTER: Anybody can purchase it at a chemist’s?
WEBSTER: They could do so.
Is it something akin to chlorine?
WEBSTER: I mean they could so up to before 12 months ago quite easily.
Since then would they have to have a prescription?
WEBSTER: A medical prescription.
Is it something akin to chlorodyne?
WEBSTER: Yes, to some extent.
Is this correct what you swore before the Justices? “If a person suffered with the heart chlorodyne or tincture of opium would produce relief”.
WEBSTER: I am not sure whether I said “would relieve pain” or “produce relief”. Chlorodyne contains traces of morphine.
I am reading from what you signed as correct.
WEBSTER: Yes.
Any person who is suffering from his heart might be in the possession of tincture of opium and it would produce relief?
WEBSTER: Yes, that is so.
I suppose chlorodyne also contains morphine, does it not?
WEBSTER: Traces.
In the same way that tincture of opium does?
WEBSTER: The amount of tincture of opium is one per cent.
And of chlorodyne?
WEBSTER: I cannot give the exact amount of cholorodyne.
At any rate, in cholorodyne there is some morphine?
WEBSTER: It does contain morp hine.
What you found was only a trace?
WEBSTER: That is so.
Only a trace of morphine?
WEBSTER: Yes.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I understand Dr Spilsbury is going to be called so I will not put the other questions which I had intended to put to Mr Webster.
BERNARD HENRY SPILSBURY Sworn
EXAMINED BY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Bernard Spilsbury, are you the Senior Pathologist to the Home Office, Bachelor of Medicine, Lecturer on Anatomy at St Bartholomew’s Hospital, and other degrees?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
Did you make a postmortem examination of the exhumed body of Percy Thompson on the 3rd November at one o’clock?
SPILSBURY: I did.
And was Dr. Drought, a Divisional Police Surgeon, also present?
SPILSBURY: He was.
Was the body that of a well-nourished man?
SPILSBURY: it was.
Did you find cuts in the neck and in the throat?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
Was one of them at the right-hand side of the back of the neck just below the angle of the jaw passed upwards and inwards to the floor of the mouth?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
And the third on the right-hand side of the neck a little below the second wound and in front of it which passed into the gullet and made a long cut in it?
SPILSBURY: Yes, that would also have opened the main artery, the carotid artery.
Were the skull and the coverings of the blood vessels normal?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
SPILSBURY: Was the heart slightly enlarged?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
Were the other organs of the body though some of them in an advanced state of decomposition, healthy as far as you could tell?
SPILSBURY: So far as I could tell at the time.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Before you get away from the wounds, had they a large surface; were they stabs or cuts?
SPILSBURY: They were stabs, my Lord, with the exception of one on the right arm, which was a cut.
The three that you have mentioned?
SPILSBURY: The three in the neck are stabs.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Did you find any signs of poisoning?
SPILSBURY: No.
Did you find any scars in the intestines?
SPILSBURY: No sir.
You are aware that glass has been mentioned in this case and mentioned in the letters as possibly being administered to Percy Thompson?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
Directing your mind to that would you, if glass were administered, necessarily expect to find indications in the organs.
SPILSBURY: No.
Would the administration of glass, broken or ground, glass in large pieces or in powdered particles produce different results?
SPILSBURY: It would.
Would you just explain how that is.
SPILSBURY: Large fragments of glass if given might produce injury by cutting the wall of the gullet, or the stomach or the intestines and, if those injuries did not prove fatal, a scar or scars might be found on the walls afterwards. If given in a powdered form the immediate effect of the powder would be to produce innumerable minute injuries to the delicate membranes lining the stomach and intestines, in all probability setting up an acute illness but, if that did not occur or if recovery followed, the glass would disappear entirely from the system with the possible exception of that small portion known as the appendix, in which it might lodge and remain for a long time.
In this case did you find any indications of powdered glass in the abdomen?
SPILSBURY: No, there were none.
And I think you found no indication either of the presence of glass in large pieces or in powdered particles?
SPILSBURY: No.
Is the negative result of your examination consistent with glass having been administered?
SPILSBURY: Some time previously, yes.
Is it possible that glass in large pieces would have passed through the system without injury to the organs?
SPILSBURY: Without such injury as would leave any signs behind.
That is possible?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean large pieces?
SPILSBURY: Yes, my Lord, large pieces I am speaking of.
THE SOCLITOR GENERAL: Would they pass away with soft food?
SPILSBURY: They would pass away in the food and they would pass away in the excrement.
Is what you found as the negative result of your examination consistent also with particles of glass having been passed through the system?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
As to other poisons would you expect necessarily to find indications of poisons if they had been administered some considerable time before?
SPILSBURY: No.
About what time might elapse and leave no indications?
SPILSBURY: Some poisons would leave no traces at any time even if death occurred shortly after administration. Others would produce effects which would last for a few days, and in the case of a few poisons a few weeks, but after the end of that time there are very few poisons which would leave any indications, except poisons which were corrosive or which were markedly irritant poisons.
Might I ask you about poisons which have been mentioned in this case as to the marking of them. Of course hyoscine is such a poison as you describe, markedly irritable?
SPILSBURY: No.
Cocaine?
SPILSBURY: No.
Cyanide of potassium?
SPILSBURY: Yes, that is an irritant, but I doubt as to whether it would leave any permanent damage if it was recovered from –
How long might recovery take after the last dose?
SPILSBURY: It would be a matter of a few days at most. It would either kill quickly or recovery would occur within a short time.
Sodium antimony tartarate?
SPILSBURY: That is an irritant poison.
After how long a time would you expect to find no traces?
SPILSBURY: I think probably it would be difficult to detect any traces after ten days or a fortnight.
Bichloride of mercury?
SPILSBURY: That is an intense irritant poison.
How long would that show results if the administration was not fatal?
SPILSBURY: That might show results for a very long time; it is one of the exceptions in the kidneys and bowel there might be evidence of it after certainly some weeks and, possibly, some months after its administration. At any rate, it might clear up completely in a non-fatal case within 3 or 4 weeks.
Q, And the last, digitalin?
SPILSBURY: That would have no irritant action, no irritant effect. I mean, rather.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That, used in small quantities, it is a stimulant?
SPILSBURY: Yes, my Lord, very frequently.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL : Morphine also would not leave any traces?
SPILSBURY: No, it would not.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
Does it all come to this, that there has been no trace whatever at the post-mortem of any glass having been administered
SPILSBURY: That is so.
Either in large pieces or powdered?
SPILSBURY: That is so.
And, as far as poisons are concerned, there is no trace whatever, except of morphine, which I have dealt with. There is no trace of any poison ever having been administered.
SPILSBURY: That is so.
No trace of any poison being present and no changes suggestive of previous attempts to poison?
SPILSBURY: Quite.
Just a word or two about the glass. I understand you divide that quite naturally into two classes, larger pieces or powdered glass?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
I will deal, first of all, with the larger pieces. Large pieces of glass – by that of course you mean really quite small but not powder?
SPILSBURY: No, it means sometimes fragments are swallowed which might be half an inch or more in length.
Take the smallest piece, as distinct from powdered glass?
SPILSBURY: Well, a specule which would be more than, I should say, a quarter of an inch in length; less than that one gets in powdered glass.
Now dealing with the larger pieces. Glass, of course, would pass through the gullet into the stomach, and then through the duodenum and so on through the intestines to the caecum.
SPILSBURY: Yes.
And off the caecum is the appendix?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
Now, through its journey through those parts of the body, a large piece of glass tends to cut or make a scar, would it not?
SPILSBURY: Well, it would tend to cut or to pierce the wall; the scar would come afterwards.
You would find then a scar remaining afterwards, would you not?
SPILSBURY: You might do so.
You have very careful examined to see if there was any scar anywhere?
SPILSBURY: Yes, I did.
There was none?
SPILSBURY: I could find, no.
Of course, from the appendix there is no outlet?
SPILSBURY: No, except the one opening into the bowel.
Except the one opening from the caecum?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
And the appendix is below the caecum in the body?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
A sort of sink?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
Now you might find either a largeish piece of glass or signs of powdered glass, if it had been taken in the appendix?
SPILSBURY: I should not expect to find a largeish piece of glass in the appendix; the opening would be probably too small to allow it to enter.
Of course it depends upon what you mean by a largeish piece of glass?
SPILSBURY: Yes, it if was a fine specule, shaped like a needle or a pin, it might get in but most irregular fragments of glass are not like that.
No, they would be stopped, owing to the size of the opening if the appendix?
SPILSBURY: Yes, the small opening.
But something which is heavy would, or might, fall into the appendix?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
And might remain for a very considerable time?
SPILSBURY: Yes
Now you made a careful examination of the appendix?
SPILSBURY: I did.
And there was no trace at all there of glass of any sort, powdered or otherwise?
SPILSBURY: No, not a trace.
Now the poisons that Mr Solicitor has mentioned to you, you have told us which are corrosive poisons and which are not but if doses of any of these poisons had been given it would result in illness?
SPILSBURY: Yes, if given in appreciable poisonous doses.
The degree of illness, of course, would depend upon the amount itself?
SPILSBURY: Yes, of course.
It might be very slight or it might be illness ending in death?
SPILSBURY: Yes.
Some of those poisons you might find a trace of afterwards and some you might not; it depends when they were taken?
SPILSBURY: You are speaking now of the analysis or of the post-mortem appearances?
The post-mortem appearances?
SPILSBURY: There are not many of those poisons which have been given to me this morning which would leave any permanent effect at all.
Some would leave, of course, a trace in that analysis?
SPILSBURY: Yes, for a time.
At any rate, there was no trace either post-mortem or by analysis of any poisoning ever having been given?
SPILSBURY: No.
Mr TRAVERS HUMPHREYS My Lord, I was consulting my learned friends in order to see if they desire us to call the remainder of the witnesses, Edgar Edwards, Detective Sergeant, Robert Gilham, Coroner’s Officer, William Mould, Henry Palmer and Detective-Inspector Rixon.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not require any of those witnesses.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Nor do I.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That will be the case for the Crown.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are putting in all the exhibits or those which you have not formally put in.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: All the Exhibits are in.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Some of course are read and are taken as in. You have put in all the Exhibits 1 to 69?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: And there is a 70, I think?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: 70 was the additional document put in today and I think my learned friend Mr Travers Humphreys mentioned them all by numbers as Exhibits. That is the case for the Crown, my lord. The letters are to be read, and if it is convenient to my learned friends – I do not know how we shall proceed – if my learned friends wish it, I will read them.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I take it if things are put in they are entitled to have them put before the jury and entitled to exercise the point of saying that anything which is put before the jury, they are entitled to have the whole of. I am not saying it is unreasonable. That is the law; but that is the course you must pursue. They are put in and they are therefore part of the documents before the Court.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes. I do desire this, that they should be read, because of course parts of them have been read.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: If at any time you say I do not want any more of that – I dare say you will say so. Now I suppose the jury when they consider that matter should have copies which are easily readable of all of them. I do not know how soon they can have them.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I think it has already been done.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: These bundles are ready for the jury; they have been produced in haste and may have to be examined this evening more closely, but I have no doubt substantially they are accurate. Then, if my learned friends desire, shall I and my friends read them now so far as possible chronologically?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I am not ambitious to read them.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I hope you will relieve Mr. Austin of this task, because technically I believe when they are put in it is the duty of the Clerk of the Court to read them.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Perhaps we will take turns.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is easily left in this case to the juniors. We do not want the statements; some of them are statements of witnesses.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: We do not want those, only the letters, my Lord.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Then I will begin reading them.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have not got them all in order.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: 49 is the first.
MR TRAVERS HUMPREYS: The first is Exhibit 49, a letter dated 1st August 1921, it ought to be the first page of the jury’s bundle: “Darlingest, – Will you please take these letters back now! I have nowhere to keep them, except a small cash box, I have just bought and I want that for my own letters only and I feel scared to death in case anybody else should read them. All the wishes I can possibly send for the very best of luck to-day.From PEIDI.
The next is Exhibit 12, the envelope address to Mr F Bywaters, 11 Westow Street Upper Norwood, and the postmark on the envelope gives the date as 20th August 1921. The next one is Exhibit 12 “Come and see me Monday lunch time, please darlint. He suspects.”
The next is Exhibit 62, which is undated.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is the postmark of that?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The postmark is not decipherable, but my Lord there is a reference to Welsh Woman, and that has been proved to be about the 18th November 1921. I think that date may be put on it if my friend will agree. I think my friend will agree that is about the 18th of November 1921. “Darlint, – Its Friday today – that loose end sort of day (without you) preceding the inevitable week end. I dont know what to do – to just stop thinking, thinking very very sad thoughts darlint, they will come, I try to stifle them, but its no use. Darlint, – Its Friday today – that loose end sort of day (without you) preceding the inevitable week end. I dont know what to do – to just stop thinking, thinking very very sad thoughts darlint, they will come, I try to stifle them, but its no use. Last night I lay awake all night – thinking of you and of everything connected with you and me. Darlint I think you got into Marseilles last night did you? anyway I felt you did – perhaps you got my first letter, the other one you will get today. All I could think about last night was that compact we made. Shall we have to carry it thro? dont let us darlint. Id like to live and be happy – not for a little while, but for all the while you still love me. Death seemed horrible last night – when you think about it darlint, it does seem a horrible thing to die, when you have never been happy really happy for one little minute. I’ll be feeling awfully miserable tonight darlint, I know you will be too, because you’ve only been gone one week out of 8 and even after 7 more have gone – I cant look forward can you? Will you ever be able to teach me to swim and play tennis and everything else we thought of, on the sands in Cornwall? you remember that wonderful holiday we were going to have in 22, and that little flat in Chelsea you were coming home to every time and that ‘Tumble down nook’ you were going to buy for me, one day. They all seem myths now. Last night I booked seats for the Hippodrome – the show was good – not a variety, but a sort of pierrot entertainment and 2 men opened the show with singing ‘Feather your nest.’ I wish we could just you and I – but we will yes, somehow we must. I enjoyed the show immensely – you understand me don’t you darlint. I was dancing the hours, I was forgetting, but by myself in bed I was remembering. Altho its Friday Im not going anywhere, I haven’t been asked Darlint. Yesterday I met a woman who had lost 3 husbands in eleven yars and not thro the war, 2 were drowned and one committed suicide and some people I know cant lose one. How unfair everything is. Bess and Reg are coming to dinner Sunday.Today [Friday 18 November 1921] is the Derby Cup and I have some money on ‘Front Line.’ I dont suppose it will win, Im never lucky not in anything darlint, except in knowing you. I dont think Ill be able to buy that watch for you by Xmas, darlint, Id like to ever so much, but as things are, Im afraid I cant afford to, but the will and the wish to give is there and I know youll like that just as well. A man on the stage said this last night ‘Marriage is the inclination of a crazy man to board a lazy woman, for the rest of his natural life.’ Rather cutting I think, but there it came from a man. Au revoir darlint, until Monday, I’ll write some more then and hope I’ll be able to talk with you as well. [19th November 1921] Altho’ I said Au revoir until Monday Darlint its only Saturday now. We are opening Sats. always now. I don’t like it a bit because Im thinking of that Sat. about the 14th when you will be home but perhaps I’ll manage to get that one off. He’s grumbling fearfully about it –‘No home comfort whatever, you’ll have to stop at home,’ no other man’s wife wants to gad the town every day.’ They all find enough interest in their home.’ Is his Saturday off today. When I looked at you to say ‘good morning’ an irresistible feeling overcame me, to put my fingers thro your hair and I couldnt. I love doing that darlint, it feels so lovely – you don’t mind do you? most men dont like it, in fact they hate it, usually, but I know youre different from most men. When I got to 231 last night only Avis was in. Mother and Dad had gone to Highbury to see Grandma, I believe she is sinking fast. Avis said at the class 1 Mel mentioned he had seen me ‘with a friend of yours’ he said to Avis, but when Avis was telling me this she said ‘I asked him who it was and he wouldn’t tell me.’ She didnt actually ask me to tell her, so of course I didn’t mention you, but she knows I am sure. On the Friday you left, Mel rang me twice and both times I was out, he hasnt rung again. Yesterday I lunched opposite a Major and his typist. Id love you to have been there. The conversation consisted of ‘How extraordinary’, ‘really’ and giggles. She did manage to say – rather loudly, too ‘I do wish I’d come into my money soon, I’m tired of being poor.’ I’m sure they would have amused you, it reminded me of what you said Molly’s stock of conversation consisted of. People tell me I have got fatter in the face this last fortnight, darlint do you put on flesh when your heart is aching, I suppose you must if I am fatter because my heart aches such a lot. When I lay awake at nights and think, the small ray of hope seems so frail, so futile, that I can hardly make myself keep it alive. Its 12 noon now and I am going to get ready to go – no not home, but to 41 to get dinner ready, first and then do shopping and clean the bedroom and dust the other room and do God knows how many jobs, but I suppose they will all help to pass the time away. If I could only go to sleep tonight and wake up tomorrow and find it was the 7.1.22. But I cant I know nothing ever comes right in this world, not right as we want it to be. Its an awful sort of state to get into, this morbid feeling and I hope I shant give it to you, darlint when youre reading this. Perhaps I ought not to write at all when I feel like this, perhaps I’ll feel better on Monday, anyway I’ll put this away until then. I’ve had a funny sort of week darlint. I want to tell you all about it and I dont know how. I am staying in this lunch time, especially to write to you. First of all on Sat. at tea, we had words over getting a maid. He wants one, but wont have Ethel [Ethel Vernon White] ‘because my people wont like it’ he said I was fearfully strung up and feeling very morbid so you may guess this didn’t improve things. However at night in bed the subject – or the object the usual one came up and I resisted, because I didn’t want him to touch me for a month from Nov.3rd do you understand me darlint? He asked me why I wasn’t happy now – what caused the unhappiness and I said I didn’t feel unhappy – just indifferent, and he said I used to feel happy once. Well, I suppose I did, I suppose even I would have called it happiness, because I was content to let things just jog along, and not think, but that was before I knew what real happiness could be like, before I loved you darlint. Of course I did not tell him that but I did tell him I didn’t love him and he seemed astounded. He wants me to forgive and forget anything he has said or done in the past and start fresh and try and be happy again and want just him. He wants me to try as well and so that when another year has passed meaning the year that ends on January 15/1922, we shall be just as happy and contented as we were on that day 7 [she means 6] years ago. These are his words I am quoting. I told him I didnt love him but that I would do my share to try and make him happy and contented. It was an easy way out of a lot of things to promise this darlint. I hope you can understand. I was feeling awful – I could have so easily died and I still feel awful today, how I wish you were here, – I think only you can make me hope on a little longer. I got 2 letters in separate envelopes and 2 letters in 1 long envelope – today darlint, but I didnt like the E on the long envelope, even to curb other people’s curiosity dont put that again darlint. It was lovely to be able to talk to you. I didnt feel any happier after doing so, but darlint you and I wont ever feel really happy until we have each other do you think? The first page of your first letter amused me immensely I can imagine the bugler – also the condition of the other boys. I think I did tell you darlint I had 1 letter from Tilbury on Friday night and 1 long envelope from Tilbury Sat. morning and 1 letter from Dover Monday morning. Darlint I dont like you to say and think those hard things about yourself and I certainly dont like that sentence of yours ‘I’ve run away and left you.’ Don’t please think them or about them. Truly darlint, I dont, I know whatever you say – that its Fate – its no more your fault than it is mine that things are still as they are, in fact perhaps I really know, deep down in my heart, that it is more mine, but I try to stifle those thoughts, I only keep them locked up in my heart and I say to myself ‘He wont even let it be my Fault this next time.’ Am I right darlint? its the only thought that makes me want to live on. Darlint, you say do I remember? that Monday Oct. 31. I’ll never forget it, I felt – oh I dont know, just that I didnt really know what I was doing, it seemed so grand to see you again, so grand to just feel you hold my shoulders, while you kissed me, so grand to hear you say just 3 ordinary commonplace words ‘how are you.’ Yes I did feel happy then. I am glad you like ‘Maria’. I thought it was lovely and yet I didnt expect you to agree with me about the ending. I am glad you do darlint. That’s just what I thought it was a real live book, so sad tho’ – I suppose thats what made it real – I’ll never forget how I felt when reading it and I cried – oh such a lot. Perhaps you do know how she felt darlint, I’m not sure, you know a man never feels like a woman about anything, but perhaps you know a little how she felt, because youre different yourself, anyway I know and I could feel for her. Darlint, 3 years, 6 ½ years, no I’m not going to imagine, Im just not going to, – 3 months from now is absolutely the longest I am even going to try and imagine. Im not going to look any farther forward and youre not either yet. I’m sorry you asked me about a photograph.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Do you want all this?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: My Lord, I am most anxious that the jury shall realise what a tremendous amount there is in each one of these letters or in most of these letters. Of course they have got the letters and they will be able to read them for themselves.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: They can read them at their leisure, I only thought it would save time.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I am only anxious that the jury should not think that these letters which were read by my learned fiend were the whole of the letters; they are a small part, as one sees from this letter,. of the whole of the correspondence.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I quite appreciate your point, but there are so many pages in this letter which are simply – I do not know how to describe it; I do not want to use anything offensive, but they are gush, are not they?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I would not accept that word my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is not for me to judge them really.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I think the next pages show that Mrs Thompson was discussing the characters of different people.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have simply run on, as those who sit here do, and I have got to the end of the letters and it does not seem to me anything but discussing character. You have got the gist of that letter, and we might get on. The jury have got the whole of it.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, I am sure the jury in the leisure which they have will read the whole of it.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The next letter is Exhibit 27, the jury will find in their bundle at the end a letter which comes next in order of date. It is a letter from Bywaters to Mrs Thompson, those three which were put at the end.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: We had better take them all in order of time. Here is a letter from Bywaters.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: It is Exhibit 14.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Have you got it, gentlemen, beginning “Dear Edie”?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: That is the 1st of December 1921. Headed “P. and O. Steamship ‘Morea’, Bombay. “Dear Edie, Do you remember last Xmas [Christmas 1920] you wrote to me wishing me all the best. I never wrote you so this year I’m going to make sure of it. I want to wish you all that you can wish yourself. I know all those wishes of yours will run into a deuce of a lot of money. Such items as fur coats, cars and champagne, will be very prominent on the list – anyhow, good health and I hope you get it. Have a very real good time, the best that is possible. I shall get about 2 days this side of Suez. Never mind I will have a drink with you. Once more the very very best at Xmas and always. Yours very sincerely, FREDDY.”
That is followed by Exhibit 27. This is undated, but it is fixed from the evidence of a witness as sometime in December 1921. “Have told you before I put 10- eh way on ‘Welsh Woman’ for the M’chester Cup; just because you liked it. I expect you know the result. The favourite won and it (the favourite) was the only horse I really fancied, but as it was only 5 to 2 starting price, I didn’t think it was worth the risk and then the dashed thing won. Darlint, its a good job you are winning some money at cards, for I can’t win any at horses. I have won 14/9 on one race since you have been gone, I’ve forgotten which one it was. I’ve enclosed you several cuttings, please read them darlint, and tell me what you think of them. The one I’ve marked with a cross I think very true indeed, but I’d like to know what you think about it.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is something not put on, something obviously of no importance to the prosecution.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: One of those I mentioned this morning.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not in question.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: About the relations between man and woman.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: In fact when the letter was found the cuttings were not with it, so we have not got them. I will leave out the next paragraph, ‘It is the man who has no right who generally comforts the woman who has wrongs.’
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is a quotation from one of the cuttings.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Yes. “That is also right darlint isn’t it? as things are, but darlint, its not always going to be is it? You will have the right soon wont you? Say Yes. The ‘husband and dance partners’ article also amused me, especially as things are. I think I told you about him wanting to learn. Last Tuesday [13 December] when Avis came across he asked her to teach him and she is coming across next Tuesday to give him his first lesson. He wanted me to teach him, but I said I hadnt the patience, my days of dragging round beginners were over. Of course this conversation led to us discussing dancing rather a lot and we talked about the nonstop. We were talking of going as a set with our own partners and Avis detailed them all until she came to me and hesitated so I filled in the gap by saying ‘Bill,’ I felt like telling him who it really was and perhaps had Avis not been there I should have done, but I didnt want to endure any more scenes especially in front of her. You will find the photos with this letter, I havent looked at them and I hope they are so rotten you’ll send them all back. Is it horrid of me to feel like this? I suppose it is, but darlint I want bucking up today Ive made a bruise on each side of my left wrist, with my right thumb and finger, but it doesnt do any good, it doesnt feel like you. We went to Stamford Hill to dinner on Sunday [18 December 1921] and had a very good time, and were given an invitation to dinner on January 7th to Highbury. We accepted but all the time I was wishing and hoping (probably against hope) that circumstances would not allow me to go, do you understand? but I suppose I shall go. The last 2 Fridays I have been to the Waldorf and on the first occasion it was very foggy – all the trains were late, so had a taxi right to the Avenue and got to Mother’s at 10.20. He wasnt coming for me so I didnt matter much – but I expect they wonder what I do. I have promised to go to the ‘Café Marguerite’ to dinner tonight. Can you guess with whom? God knows why I said Id go, I dont want to a bit especially with him, but it will help to pass some time away, it goes slowly enough in all conscience – I dont seem to care who spends the money, as long it helps me to dance through the hours. I had the wrong Porridge today, but I dont suppose it will matter, I dont seem to care much either way. You’ll probably say I’m careless and I admit I am, but I dont care – do you? I gave way this week (to him I mean,) its the first time since you have been gone. Why do I tell you this? I dont really know myself, I didnt when you were away before, but it seems different this time, then I was looking forward – but now well I can only go from day to day and week to week until Jan.7th – then thoughts and all things stop”.
The next is about a book, do you want it Sir Henry?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT No.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Then, after a dash, showing a pause, it goes on “Darlint, Monday [19 December] – I recd greetings from you and a note ‘I cant write to you’ and Ive been expecting to talk to you for a long time I wanted I wanted you to cheer me up – I feel awful – but I know darlint if you cant well you cant – that’s all to be said about it, but I always feel I cant talk to you when I start, but I just say to myself he’s here with me, looking at me and listening to what I am saying and it seems to help darlint, couldn’t you try and do this, I feel awfully sad and lonely and think how much you would be cheering me up but perhaps you’ll think I’m selfish about it all and I suppose I am, but remember when you are thinking badly or hardly of me your letters are the only thing I have in the world and darlint, I havnt even all those. We had – was it a row – anyway a very heated argument again last night (Sunday). It started through the usual source, I resisted – and he wanted to know why since you went in August I was different –‘had I transferred my affections from him to you.’ Darlint its a great temptation to say ‘Yes’ but I did not. He said we were cunning, the pair of us and lots of other things that I forget, also that I told lies about not knowing you were coming home on that Sat. He said ‘Has he written to you since he has been away,’ and when I said ‘No’ he said ‘That’s another lie.’ Of course he cant know for certain, but he surmises you do and Im afraid he’ll ring up and ask them to stop anything that comes for me so I must get Jim on my side. You now darlint I am beginning to think I have gone wrong in the way I manage this affair. I think perhaps it would have been better had I acquiesced in everything he said and did or wanted to do. At least it would have disarmed any suspicion he might have and that would have been better if we have to use drastic measures darlint – understand? Anyway so much for him. Ill talk about someone else. Have you guessed with whom I went to the Café Marguerite? If not you will by the following
‘Isnt your sister jealous of you.’
Me – My sister – why should she be?
He – It seems to me you see more of her fiance than she does herself.
Me – Hows that and what do you know about it anyway?
He – Well I saw you going down Ilford Hill the other evening and he was holding your arm – did you go to a dance together?
Me – Oh shut up and talk about something else.
But darlint he wouldn’t he kept on coming back to you and I’d gone there to forget and instead of forgetting I was remembering all the time.”
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Then 13, it is addressed to Mr F Bywaters Royal Mail Steamship Morea, Plymouth, 3rd January 1922: “Darlint, I’ve felt the beastliest most selfish little wretch that is alive. Here have I been slating you all this trip for not talking to me and I get all those letters from Marseilles darlint, I love them and don’t take any notice of me, I know I am selfish – and you ought to know by now, I told you haven’t I? heaps of times. Now what have I got to talk to you about? heaps of things I believe – but the most important thing is, that I love you and am feeling so happy that you are coming back to England, even tho perhaps I am not going to see you – you know best about that darlint, and I am going to leave everything to you – only I would like to help you, can’t I. Of course he knows you are due in on the 7th and will be very suspicious of me from then, so I suppose I wont be able to see you – will I? You know darlint, don’t have the slightest worrying thoughts about letters as ‘to be careful I’ve been cruel’ to myself I mean. Immediately I have received a second letter, I have destroyed the first and when I got the third I destroyed the second and so on, now the only one I have is the ‘Dear Edie’ one written to 41, which I am going to keep. It may be useful, who knows? By the way I had a New Year’s card, addressed to me only from ‘Osborne House, Shanklin.’ About the 15th darlint, which will be the 14th as that is the Sat: I am going – as far as I know, I have to book the seats this week. Darlint, I’ve surrendered to him unconditionally now – do you understand me? I think it the best way to disarm any suspicion, in fact he has several times asked me if I am happy now and I’ve said ‘Yes quite’, but you know that’s not the truth, don’t you. About the photos darlint, I have not seen them, so I don’t understand about ‘waiting for you’ please destroy all you don’t want and when you come to England, show me what I look like, will you yes, I was glad you promised for me, darlint, as I most certainly should have refused myself and I should have hated myself for refusing all the time. Darlint, I never want to refuse you anything, its lovely for me to feel like that about you, I think by this you can understand how much I love you. The French phrase darlint, if I can remember rightly was ‘I cant wait so long, I want time to go faster.’ You used iron and I used my heel and its such a long time ago, or seems so since I asked a question, to which your ‘I did that’ is the answer, that, I have forgotten what my question was. Yes, darlint I did wonder about you and the ‘Cale’ and was nursing all to myself quite an aggrieved feeling against you for not telling me, but your letter explained. I feel glad you didn’t transfer, darlint Ive got no special reason for feeling glad – but I am. About the fortune teller – you have never mentioned ‘March’ before darlint, you’ve said ‘Early in the New Year,’ are you gradually sliding up the year to keep my spirits up? Darlint, I hope not I’d sooner be sad for ever and know the truth, than have that expectant feeling of buoyancy for a myth. Darlint Ill do and say all and everything you tell me to, about friend, only remember not to do anything that will leave me behind by myself. About the Stewardess, Im glad you went to the cabin with her, what is it I feel and think about you? I have someone to lean on – if I need anyone, and she had to darlint, hadn’t she? someone to lean on and help her, even against her own inclinations. I know I am right? Darlint, I didn’t think it fair about the fight altho most people are disgusted by boxing (women, I mean). I always tried to look upon it as something strong and big and when you told me about that I thought ‘If amateurs even do that sort of thing, then professionals must’ and I felt disappointed. Thanking you for those greetings darlint, but you wont always be ‘The man with no right’ will you – tell me you wont – shout at me – make me hear and believe darlint, about that ‘Do you’ I believe I felt about the worst I have ever felt when that happened I think when I noticed what I had done I had a conscience prick and felt ‘I dont care what happens and I dont suppose he does really’ but you would care wouldn’t you darlint? tell me yes, if I really thought you wouldnt darlint I shouldnt want to die, I just want to go mad. Why have you never told me what you thought of your own photos darlint, you are a bad bad correspondent really darlint I absolutely refuse to talk to you at all next trip, if you dont mend your ways. Darlint, are you frightened at this – just laugh at me.”
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not want any more of that.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: No15 is next. This is addressed to Mr F Bywaters, P and O Royal Mail Steamship Morea. It is dated 10th February 1922: “Darlint – You must do something this time – I’m not really impatient – but opportunities come and go by – they have to – because I’m helpless and I think and think and think – perhaps – it will never come again. I want to tell you about this. On Wednesday we had words – in bed – Oh you know darlint – over that same old subject and he said – it was all through you I’d altered. I told him if he ever again blamed you to me for any difference there might be in me, I’d leave home that minute and this is not an idle threat. He said lots of other things and I bit my lip – so that I shouldn’t answer – eventually went to sleep. About 2 a.m. he woke me up and asked for water as he felt ill. I got it for him and he asked him what the matter was and this is what he told me – whether its the truth I dont know or whether he did it to frighten me, anyway it didn’t. He said – someone he knows in town (not the man I previously told you about) had given him a prescription for a draught for insomnia and he’d had it made up and taken it and it made him ill. He certainly looked ill and his eyes were glassy. I’ve hunted for the said prescription everywhere and cant find it and asked him what he had done with it and he said the chemist kept it. I told Avis about the incident only I told her as if it frightened and worried me as I thought perhaps it might be useful at some future time when I had told somebody. What do you think, darlint. His sister Maggie came in last night and he told her, so now there are two witnesses, altho’ I wish he hadn’t told her – but left me to do it. It would be so easy darlint – if I had things – I do hope I shall. How about cigarettes? Have enclosed cuttings of Dr. Wallis’s case. It might prove interesting darlint, I want to have you only I love you so much try and help me. PEIDI”
Enclosed in that are four cuttings; I am reading from a copy of the exhibit.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not want the cuttings read.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I will read the heads “Curate’s household of three. Mystery of his death still unsolved. Wife and Doctor. Woman asked to leave the court during man’s evidence’. The next is “Poisoned chocolates for University Chief. Deadly powder posted to University Chancellor. Ground glass in box. Scotland Yard called in to probe serious outrage”. The last one is “University mystery”. The next is No. 16, which is dated February 22nd, 1922 and addressed to Bywaters at Port Said: “Darlint, I’ve been beastly ill again this week – only with a cold tho, but it was a pretty rotten one, pains all over me. I caught it from him, I asked him when he had his if he would sleep in the little room and he said ‘No, you never catch my colds, I always catch yours’ so we remained as we were and I caught it badly. Darlint in a hundred years you’d never guess what happened on Sunday – I’ll tell you, but you mustn’t laugh I was given my breakfast in bed, I think he was feeling sorry about not sleeping alone when I asked him, so did that. Darlingest boy, it is four whole weeks today since you went and there is still another four more to go – I wish I could go to sleep for all that time and wake up just in time to dress and sit by the fire, – waiting for you to come in on March 18, I dont think Id come to meet you darlint it always seems so ordinary and casual for me to see you after such a long time – in the street, I shall always want you to come straight to our home and take me in both your arms and hold me for hours – and you can’t do that in the street or a station can you darlint I think Bill is leaving Bombay today I wonder if you have played any matches and I wonder and want to know so much who has won. Darlint, did anything happen in Bombay – or did any kind of conversation happen whatever referring to me at all. I felt terribly lonely all week, darlint – a kind of ‘dont care, cant bother to fight’ sort of a feeling. Im just waiting for a gorgeous long letter from you when will it come, I suppose not for a long time yet, I do so want you to talk to me today, I keep on looking at you to make you talk, but no words & not even thoughts will come. I am looking now darlint, hard at you [his photo on her desk] and I can hear you say ‘dont worry Chere’ to Peidi. Darlint, pleased, happy, hopeful and yet sorry – thats how I feel, can you understand? Sorry that I’ve got to remain inactive for more than another whole month, and I had thought by that time I should be seeing you for just as long and every time you wanted me. However, for that glorious state of existence I suppose we must wait for another three or four months. Darlint, I am glad you succeeded Oh so glad I cant explain, when your note came I didn’t know how to work at all – all I kept thinking of was your success – and my ultimate success I hope. I suppose it isn’t possible for you to send it to me – not at all possible, I do so chafe at wasting time darlint. He had a cold last week and didn’t go in, but came up to meet me about 5. Of course I didnt know he was coming and it was funny – our Monkey was on my desk – which must have been and Im confident was noticed. Miss Prior told him we had not worked after 5 since last year and he mentioned this to me – as much as to say ‘How do you account for saying you worked late some weeks ago’. I didnt offer any explanations. On the evening that I told we had had words – about you – he asked me for your address which I gave him and which he wrote in his note book, he also asked me what had happened to the Xmas greeting letter you sent and when I said I kept it he said ‘Why, you never do keep letters from people’ so I answered ‘I kept it for bravado, I knew youd miss it and know I had kept it and one of these days ask me for it.’ He also said ‘Have you anything whatever belonging to him – anything mind you’ (I knew he meant our monkey) ‘I have nothing whatever belonging to him’ I said – darlint it wasn’t a lie was it, because the monkey belongs to us doesn’t it and not to you or to me, and if it was a lie I dont care, I’d tell heaps and heaps and heaps to help you even tho I know you don’t like them. Darlint that reminds me you said in one of your letters ‘It was a lie and Peidi I hate them,’ about something I had or had not told you and I forget which, but I am sure I told it to help us both. That hurt ever such a lot when I read it darlint, it hurts so much that I couldn’t talk to you about it at the time. Darlint, do you think I like telling them, do you think I don’t hate it, darlint I do hate this life I lead – hate the lies hate everything and I tell so many thats what hurts – it hits home so hard – if only I could make an absolutely clean – fresh start – it would all be so different – Id be so different too darlint and we’re going to start a new fresh clean life together soon darlint, arent we tell me we are, tell me you are confident – positive we are, I want telling all the time – to make me hope on. Darlingest boy, this thing that I am going to do for both of us will it ever – at all, make any difference between us, darlint, do you understand what I mean. Will you ever think any the less of me – not now, I know darlint – but later on – perhaps some years hence – do you think you will feel any different – because of this thing that I shall do. Darlint – if I thought you would Id not do it, not even so that we could be happy for one day even one hour, Im not hesitating darlint – through fear of any consequences of the action, dont think that but I’d sooner go on in the old way for years and years and retain your love and respect. I would like you to write to me darlint and talk to me about this.”
(Adjourned for a short time, bailiffs being sworn to take charge of the jury)
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The next letter us exhibit 20, dated the 14th March. The envelope is addressed to Bywaters, “14th March R.M.S. Morea, Plymouth. ‘Don’t you think this is funny darlint? Mr. Lester, the old man, is failing fast, and hardly knows anyone now. He doesn’t know me. Avis was over to tea the other day, and was toasting some Sally Luns in front of their fire, and he said to her – ‘I don’t know who the lady of this house is, but she is a beautiful woman, and such a good woman to her husband.’ I don’t now whether I feel honoured or otherwise.
Do you want me to read this?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Is this one of the letters I do not want at all?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is a paragraph later on.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, later on. I want to read those two about going shopping and so on.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not want those.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The jury will have them.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: “You are going to love me always aren’t you – even when you’re cross with me, and when you are I’ll ruffle all your hair lots of times until you have to melt – and smile at me – then you’ll take me in both your arms and hold me so tight I can’t breathe, and kiss me all over until I have to say ‘Stop, stop at once.’ Why do you say to me ‘Never run away, face things and argue and beat everybody.’ Do I ever run away? Have I ever run away? and do you think I should be likely to now? That’s twice this trip, something you have said has hurt. You will have to kiss all that hurt away – ‘cos it does really hurt – it’s not sham darlint. I’m not going to talk to you any more – I can’t and I don’t think I’ve shirked have I? except darlint to ask you again to think out all the plans and methods for me and wait and wait so anxiously now – for the time when we’ll be with each other – even tho’ it’s only once – for ‘one little hour’ – our kind of hour, not the song kind and just to tell you (Peidi) Loves you always.”
Is there anything else in that letter you want me to read?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: There are two more pages of it.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The next page ends she signs herself Peidi, and then begins again, and ends “Au revoir”, and she signs herself again. That is at page 52; the letter begins again. I propose to read the second paragraph on that page.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Which paragraph?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The second one unless you want the first.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What page?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Page 52, my Lord: “The mail came in 12 noon, and I thought I would be able to talk to you after that – but I don’t think I can. Will you do all the thinking and planning for me darlint – for this thing – be ready with every little detail when I see you – because you know more about this thing than I, and I am relying on you for all plans and instructions – only just the act I’m not. I’m wanting that man to lean on now darlint, and I shall hard – so be prepared.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It must mean “try hard”.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Lean hard.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: I am told the word is lean in there, but it is not in my copy – “Lean hard so be prepared. In this case I shan’t be able to rely wholly on myself, and I know you won’t fail me. I can’t remember if I only sent one letter to Port Said, if it was a very long one perhaps there only was one, but even if there wasn’t – it doesn’t matter much, does it? There would be no identification marks in it either, for you or me, and the loss of one letter seems such a small thing when you and I are looking forward to such big things darlint, this time”.
Then there is a passage about ‘The Slave’. Do you want me to read that?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No, I want the paragraph at the bottom of page 53.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: ‘Why not go to 231 darlint, I think you ought to go as usual, it would be suspicious later if you stopped away without a reason known to them and there is not a reason is there? You haven’t fallen out with Bill have you? What about Dr. Wallis’s case … you said it was interesting but you didn’t discuss it with me. Darlint, about making money – yes we must somehow, and what does it matter how – when we have accomplished that one thing – we are going to live entirely for ourselves and not study any one except ourselves? Of course I’d not like to sacrifice any one that has been or ever still is dear to me – but I’ve no other scruples darlint – except actually robbing my own flesh and blood and perhaps one or two persons that are even dearer to me than my own flesh and blood.” –
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: That is all.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: There is nothing else you want me to read of that?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Then attached to that are some cuttings, exhibit 20a. The headnote is “Girl’s death riddle”. “Tales of London night life”. “Beautiful dancer drugged”. “Visit to a Chinese restaurant”; and there are three others which are not put in which my learned friend Sir H. CURTIS-BENNETT referred to. The next letter is exhibit 50. There is no date, but it is sometime before the 31st March 1921 because that is mentioned in the letter: “Darlint, about the doubt – no, I’ve never really doubted – but I do like to hear you reassure me … I like you to write it … so that I can see it in black and white and I always want you to say, ‘Please do believe darlint that I don’t really doubt … its just a vain feeling I have to hear you say things to me … nice things – things that you mean … which most people don’t. I wonder if you understand the feeling – perhaps you don’t – but I always say and think and believe nobody on this earth is sincere – except the one man – the one who is mine. Pride of possession is a nice feeling don’t you think darlint – when it exists between you and me. I sent you the books darlint, all I felt were worth reading … I hope you’ll think of me when you’re reading them and I hope you’ll talk to me about them. After tonight I am going to die … not really … but put on the mask again darlint until the 26th May – doesn’t it seem years and years away? It does to me and I’ll hope and hope all the time that I’ll never have to wear the mask any more after this time. Will you hope and wish and wish too darlint … pour moi. This time really will be the last you will go away .. like things are, won’t it? We said it before darlint, I know and we failed … but there will be no failure this next time darlint, there mustn’t be … I’m telling you … if things are the same again then I’m going with you … wherever it is … if its to sea … I’m coming too and if its to nowhere – I’m also coming darlint. You’ll never leave me behind again, never, unless things are different.”
Do you want me to read the rest of it?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: I will read it all. “I’ve sealed up your envelopes and put them away. I did not look at them – except at a small slip of paper I found in one of the small pockets I did read that – and then put it with the others – did you know it was there darlint – it was about a chase – a paperchase I think and a request not to be wakened early. I’m beginning to think I’m rather silly to have asked you for them – because you do love me – I know that – Do you think I am silly? I slept on your letter last night darlint unopened I had no chance to read it but got up at a quarter to six this morning to do so. Darlint you can’t imagine what a pleasure it is for me to read something that you have written. I can’t describe it. Last night darlint – I didn’t think of you (Because you once told me not to) but I hope you were thinking of me. Its much harder to bear when you’re in England than when you’re away. This must be au revoir now darlint in the flesh at all events – not in the spirit Eh! We are never apart in that. Here’s luck to you in everything especially in the thing concerning two halves – one of whom is Peidi. I always do and always will love you whatever happens.”
Would you like me to read anything between pages 28 and 35?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Could not it be done in this way: when the jury adjourn this evening I can ask them to read the whole of this, cannot I?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT If the jury is going to read the whole of it this evening, then there is no object in my learned friend reading the parts he wants now.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not want to take it shortly because the prosecution wants certain parts, but I think I can tell the jury that it is their duty to read the whole of it as well as what the prosecution wants them to read; but I do not think I should leave it there. The prosecution should tell them what they rely on, and you can tell them what you rely on, and leave the jury to read the whole.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not want it to be thought, as I said this morning, that the pieces read by the prosecution comprise the whole of these letters, because I am going to submit that the pieces picked out by the prosecution are a small part of the whole.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I agree with it and that the jury should have them all in the original. I quite follow that and I am taking care that they should. I do not want to shorten it, but I do not want it to be put to them in a bundle because they are not trained as lawyers as other people, and therefore I think the prosecution should read through every letter and say what they want, and you should do the same, and then after that the jury should study them.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not want the whole of them read, but my difficulty is that I do not want it thought the other parts of these letters are not in evidence. I have no doubt the jury after what you have said will read the whole or the letters, and if I am satisfied that they are going to read the whole of the letters there is no good object in my reading what I want, because when I come to address the jury I will point out to them what I want.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I think the prosecution should read the whole of the letters that they want, but the jury will in turning them over find there are pages and pages.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I should like the jury to read the context both before and after the passages the prosecution rad so that they can follow on
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: This is a very long letter, and there are some pages which are without even a pencil mark.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: If I may say so that is the same with my copy.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I fully appreciate the points you are putting.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: This letter begins at page 28 and I do no propose to read anything until page 34.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There are bits like this, “I want you to be there by myself for a joke or a lark”, there are bits of trivial matter.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: There is one paragraph on page 31 I should like to read.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: “Darlint you’re not and never will be satisfied with half and I don’t ever want to give half – all every ounce of me that lives to you. You say you’re sorry for some things that happened. Yes! I suppose I am in a way darlint, I feel I don’t do enough. I want to show you how large my love is and when it is something you want and you do want it just at that moment don’t you – I want to give it you – I want to stifle all my own feelings for you.
That was the paragraph I wanted on that page.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are starting on page 35 Mr Humphreys?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Yes, 35, my Lord. On page 34 there is a finish to the letter for the moment because the writer signs her name and then begins again: “Dont keep this piece. About the Marconigram – do you mean one saying Yes or No, because I shant send it darlint I’m not going to try any more until you come back. I made up my mind about this last Thursday. He was telling his Mother etc. the circumstances of my ‘Sunday morning escapade’ and he puts great stress on the fact of the tea tasting bitter ‘as if something had been put in it’ he says. Now I think whatever else I try in it again will still taste bitter – he will recognise it and be more suspicious still and if the quantity is still not successful – it will injure any chance I may have of trying when you come home. Do you understand? I thought a lot about what you said of Dan. Darlint, don’t trust him – I don’t mean don’t tell him anything because I know you never would – What I mean is don’t let him be suspicious of you regarding that – because if we were succesful in the action – darlint circumstances may afterwards make us want many friends – or helpers and we must have no enemies – or even people that know a little too much. Remember the saying, ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.’ Darlint we’ll have no one to help us in the world now and we mustnt make enemies unnecessarily. He says – to his people – he fought and fought with himself to keep conscious – ‘I’ll never die, except naturally – I’m like a cat with nine lives’ he said and detailed to them an occasion when he was young and nearly suffocated by gas fumes. I wish we had not got electric light – it would be easy. I’m going to try the glass again occasionally – when it is safe Ive got an electric light globe this time.”
That is all of that letter. The next letter us exhibit 18.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is this in exhibit 17?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: That is a letter written I think from Bywaters to his mother.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: That is so.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: How does it come in here?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If your Lordship looks at the letter is referred to in the middle of page 54.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Are you putting that in?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If they want it I will read it. I do not think it bears on this case at all.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You have put a pencil mark through it. I am anxious nothing should go before the jury without their knowing what it is.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Perhaps it would be better to tear it out.
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes
(Page of exhibits torn out)
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You will not be bothered with it any more. Just hand it over to the Clerk.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The next one is exhibit 18 dated 24th April 1922. The first three or four paragraphs are all about going to plays. At the top of page 58, the second page of the letter, it says: “Mother and Dad came over to me to dinner – I had plenty to do. On Monday [Bank Holiday] Mr. and Mrs. Birnage came to tea and we all went to the Hippodrome in the evening. By the way – what is ‘Aromatic Tincture of Opium’ – Avis drew my attention to a bottle of this sealed in the medicine chest in your room. I took possession of it and when he missed it and asked me for it – I refused to give it him – he refuses to tell me where he got it and for what reason he wanted it – so I shall keep it till I hear from you. I used the ‘light bulb’ three times but the third time – he found a piece – so I’ve given it up – until you come home.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “Your room” means the room he occupied when he lived with them?
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Yes, my Lord, I assume so. Would you like me to go on?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: The next two lines.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Yes. “Do you remember asking me to get a duplicate of something -. I have done so now. On Sunday we were arguing about the price of ‘Cuticura’. Avis is quite certain when she bought it, not for herself, (her own words) it was 101/2. Mother said when she bought it for you it was 1/- and I said the same.”
Is there anything else you would like in that letter?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: To summarise the rest of that letter, my Lord, I think there is a reference to a dream; then there is criticism of three book “The Fruitful Vine”, “The Common Law” or “The Business of Life”, and then there are two and a half pages about general matters.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: The next letter is exhibit 19, page 43, dated 1st May 1922.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Then there is another criticism about a book called “New Forest”.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: Yes, I propose to begin in the middle of this second page unless my friend wants anything anything earlier. It is the passage beginning: “I was glad you think and feel the same as I do about the “New Forest”. I don’t think we’re failures in other things and we mustn’t be in this. We mustn’t give up as we said. No, we shall have to wait if we fail again. Darlint, Fate can’t always turn against us and if it is we must fight it – You and I are strong now. We must be stronger. We must learn to be patient. We must have each other darlint. Its meant to be I know I feel it is because I love you such a lot – such a love was not meant to be in vain. It will come right I know one day, if not by your efforts some other way. We’ll wait eh darlint, and you’ll try and get some money and then we can go away and not worry about anybody or anything. You said it was enough for an elephant. Perhaps it was. But you don’t allow for the taste making only a small quantity to be taken. It sounded like a reproach was it meant to be? Darlint I tried hard – you won’t know how hard – because you weren’t there to see and I can’t tell you all – but I did – I do want you to believe I did for both of us.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: The next paragraph.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: “You will see by my last letter to you I havn’t forgotten the key [is this the key to Carlton & Prior for trysting after hours?] and I didn’t want reminding – I didn’t forget that – altho’ I did forget something last time, didn’t I, although it was only small.
Then there is a passage about the holiday and Bournemouth and Llandudno. The letter breaks off and then begins again: “The mail was in this morning and I read your letter darlint, I cried – I couldn’t help it – such a lot it sounded so sad I cried for you I could exactly feel how you were feeling – I’ve felt like that so often and I know. I was buoyed up with the hope of the ‘light bulb’ and I used a lot – big pieces too – not powdered – and it has no effect – I quite expected to be able to send that cable – but no – nothing has happened from it and now your letter tells me about the bitter taste again. Oh darlint, I do feel so down and unhappy. Wouldn’t the stuff make pills coated together with soap and dipped in liquorice powder – like Beechams – try while you’re away. Our Boy had to have his thumb operated on because he had a piece of glass in it that’s what made me try that method again – but I suppose you say he is not normal, I know I feel I shall never get him to take a sufficient quantity of anything bitter. No I haven’t forgotten the key [see above] I told you before. Darlint two heads are better than one is such a true saying. You tell me not to leave finger marks on the box – do you know I did not think of the box but I did think of the glass or cup whatever was used. I wish oh I wish I wish I could do something. Darlint, think for me, do. I do want to help. If you only knew how helpless and selfish I feel letting you do such a lot for me and I doing nothing for you. I always show you how much I love you for all you do for me. Its a terrible feeling darlint to want – really Want to give all and everything, and not to be able to give a tiny little thing – just thro’ circumstances
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The next is a reference to a book.
MR TRAVERS HUMPHREYS: If your Lordship pleases a reference to a book, and then it goes on at the bottom of page 46: “That month – I can’t bear to think of it a whole four weeks and things the same as they are now. All those days to live thro for just one hour in each. All that lying and scheming and subterfuge to obtain one little hour in each day – when by right of nature and our love we should be together for all the 24 in every day. Darlint don’t let it be – I can’t bear it all this time – the pain gets too heavy to bear – heavier each day – but if things were different what a grand life we should start together. Perhaps we could have that one week: I could be ill from shock – More lies – but the last. Eh darlint. Do experiment with the pills while you are away – please darlint.No we two – two halves – have not yet come to the end of our tether’. Don’t let us. I’m sorry I’ve had to use this piece of paper.”
There are cuttings in that with headnotes: “Girls death riddle”; “Tales of London Night life”; “Beautiful dancer drugged”; “Visit to a Chinese Restaurant”. My friend Mr Roland Oliver will read the rest.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: There is nothing in the next one the prosecution rely upon; do you want it?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No, I want the jury to read it at some time; that is all.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Then exhibit 22 is addressed to Bywaters at Marseilles, dated 18th May 1922. There is a quotation on the top: “’It must be remembered that digitalin is a cumulative poison, and that the same dose harmless if taken once, yet frequently repeated, becomes deadly.’ Darlingest Boy, The above passage I’ve just come across in a book I am reading, ‘Bella Donna’ by Robert Hichens. Is it any use? In your letter from Bombay you say you asked a lot of questions from Marseilles. I hope I answered them all satisfactory Darlint. I want to. I want to do always what will please you”.
Is there any more in that one?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, I want the paragraph in the middle of the next page; shall I read it?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Yes.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: It is almost in the middle of the page: “It reminded me of the book you lent me ‘The Way of these Women.’ Do you remember the man and the woman who didn’t take their fate into their own hands although they could have done so easily. Too careful of the opinions of their so-called friends and the world. When Geoffrey remembered he should have taken her away mastered all her protests and carried her off. They were made for each other, he was married to another through no fault of his own. He had plenty of the most necessary thing money and he just drifted.”
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Exhibit 51 is the next; there is nothing we rely on there.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I did not know you had left exhibit 22.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I am sorry; will you read what you want.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, my Lord, at the top of page 64 it says: “One more day has gone by – I’m counting the days now darlint. What are you doing now, I wonder its Thursday about 12 noon and I’ve squeezed 10 minutes to talk to you. Today is fearfully cold again and very windy – I hate wind. For the last 4 days it has been 82 shade and 112 sun and today shade temp. is down to 52 – what a country to live in – hurry up and take me away – to Egypt if you like – but anywhere where its warm.”
Then there is a cutting from “Bella Donna” again.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: She has been reading about Egypt.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Exhibit 51 is next. I will read the others if my friend wishes me.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Exhibit 51.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Yes, my Lord, page 111.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “It was not his car but a friend of his. A real posh car” – whatever that maybe.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Exhibit 23 is the next, my Lord. It is dated May 23rd. Is there anything on the first page?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I am beginning at the bottom of page 71, my Lord: “Now about your letters … I cant say if you are right or wrong about Molly … I dont know her sufficiently to say and I do hate to judge other people by appearances. I’d much rather dismiss them from my thoughts altogether. I had already sent you 2 books to Plymouth darlint, the only two I have read since you’ve been away … I’d like you to read ‘Bella Donna’ first you may learn something from it to help us, then you can read ‘The fruitful Vine’ – when you are away. You say you think, I think, you dont talk enough about books and things to me. Darlingest boy I’m not going to say anything at all about anything – I’m just going to be thankful for what I do receive … think to myself … ‘I must not be impatient perhaps they wont always be crumbs.’ You havnt read a book with the term ‘Carissima’ in … at least not the book I have read it in. I do so much wonder if you will like ‘The Fruitful Vine,’ and who you will like in it – its quite different from anything I have ever read before. – Darlingest, you really must tell me all and everything you think about the book and the characters and especially the motive … I do want to know so much. Your news about – from Bombay – and waiting till next trip, made me feel very sad and downhearted – it will be awful waiting all that time, 3 months will it be – I cant wait … Yes, I can … I will, I must … I’ll make myself somehow … I’ll try to be patient darling. You talk about the cage you are in … that’s how I feel … only worse if it can be so … because mine is a real live cage with a keeper as well … to whom I have to account every day, every hour, every minute nearly.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: That is all.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: The next is exhibit 24. There are some telegrams that I am omitting. I do not know whether they are in the jury’s bundle; they have been read; exhibits 56-7-8 and 9. Exhibit 24 is dated 13th June: “Darlingest boy, I’m trying very hard – very very hard to B.B. I know my pal wants me to. On Thursday – he was on the ottoman at the foot of the bed and said he was dying and wanted to – he had another heart attack – thro me. Darlint I had to laugh at this because I knew it couldn’t be a heart attack. When he saw this had no effect on me – he got up and stormed – I said exactly what you told me to and he replied that he knew that’s what I wanted and he wasnt going to give it to me – it would make things far too easy for both of you (meaning you and me) especially for you he said. He said hed been to 231 and been told you had said you were taking a pal out and it was all a planned affair so was the last Thursday you were home and also Tuesday of last week at Fenchurch Street – he told them at 231 a pal of his saw us and by the description he gave of the man I was with it was you. Thats an awful lie darlint because I told him I went to F St. for Mr. Carlton and saw Booth and spoke to him and I asked him the next day if Booth mentioned me and he said no – nothing at all. We’re both liars he says and you are making me worse and he’s going to put a stop to all or any correspondence coming for me at 168. He said ‘Its useless for you to deny he writes to you – because I know he does’ – hence my wire to you regarding G.P.O. He also says I told him I wrote to you asking you not to see me this time – he knows very well I said last time – but I think he has really persuaded himself I said this time. I rang Avis yesterday and she said he came down there in a rage and told Dad everything – about all the rows we have had over you – but she did not mention he said anything about the first real one on August 1st – so I suppose he kept that back to suit his own ends. Dad said it was a disgraceful thing that you should come between husband and wife and I ought to be ashamed. Darlint I told you this is how they would look at it – they dont understand and they never will any of them. Dad was going to talk to me Avis said – but I went down and nothing whatever was said by any of them. I told Avis shd tell them off if they said anything to me I didnt go whining to my people when he did things I didnt approve of and I didnt expect him to – but however nothing was said at all. Dad said to them ‘What scandal if it should get in the papers’ so evidently he suggested drastic measures to them. On Friday night I said I was going to sleep in the little room – we had a scuffle – he succeeded in getting into the little room and on to the bed – so I went into the bathroom and stopped there for ½ an hour –“
Do you want any more read?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Exhibit 53 is the next one.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is next? In my list I have got 66.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: 66 is one of the telegrams I have not rea. 66, 67, 68 amd 69 are four telegrams. I did not read them. Exhibit 53 is a letter date 14th June. It might assist the jury to follow this if I mention that Bywaters was on leave from May 26th to June 29th .
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I was following that. We are now coming to his last voyage.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: The only passage in this I should refer to, apart from what my learned friends want, is the passage three quarters of the way down page 118 where it says at the end of the paragraph: “I suppose we shall thro the Summer now. Darlint, how can you get ptomaine poisoning from a tin of salmon? One of our boys Mother has died with it after being ill only three days.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What page is this?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: 118, down at the bottom at the end of a paragraph. Does your Lordship see it?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Is there anything more in that my friends want?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “One year ago today we went for that memorable ride round the island in the char-a-banc do you remember”.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes
MR ROLAND OLIVER: There is a great deal more in that, my Lord, but that is the only paragraph. That is exhibit 53; exhibit 25 is next. It is dated June 20th, and address Sydney, Australia, I am beginning a little way down: “You get into Marseilles tonight. I wonder how you’re feeling darlint, very blue – or not feeling anything at all – just drifting – its hard either way isn’t it? I wish you had taken me with you darlint – I don’t think I will be able to stay on here all alone – there seems so much to contend with – so long to ‘dance’ when you’d rather die and all for no definite purpose. Oh, I’ll pack up now, I can’t talk cheerfully – so I shan’t talk at all. Goodnight darlint.”
Then there comes a break.
“It’s Friday now, darlint, nearly time to go. I am wondering if you remember what your answer was to me in reply to my ‘What’s the matter’ tonight of last year. I remember quite well – ‘You know what’s the matter, I love you’ … but you didn’t then darlint, because you do now and its different now, isn’t it? From then onwards everything has gone wrong with our lives – I don’t mean to say it was right before – at least mine wasn’t right – but I was quite indifferent to it being either right or wrong and you darlint – you hadn’t any of the troubles – or the worries you have now – you were quite free in mind and body – and now through me you are not – darlint, I am sorry I shouldn’t mind if I could feel that some day I should be able to make up to you for all the unhappiness I have caused in your life – but I can’t feel that darlint – I keep on saying to myself that ‘it will – it shall come right’ – but there is no conviction behind it – why can’t we see into the future?
Do you want any more Mr Whiteley?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Page 80.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Would you like to read it?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: My Lord, on page 80: What an utterly absurd thing to say to me ‘Don’t be too disappointed.’ You can’t possibly know what it feels like to want and wait each day – every little hour – for something – something that means ‘life’ to you and then not to get it.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I think there is one reference on page 78, my Lord. “When you are not near darlint I wish we had taken the easiest way – I suppose it is because I can’t see you – can’t have you to hold me and talk to me – because when you are in England I always want to go on trying and trying and not to give up – to see and feel you holding me – is to hope on, and when I can’t have that I feel a coward. The days pass – no they don’t pass, they just drag on and on and the end of all this misery and unhappinesss is no nearer in sight – is anything worth living for?”
MR ROLAND OLIVER: The next one, my Lord, is exhibit 26.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: On page 81, my Lord: “All I can hope is, that you will never never feel like I do today – it’s so easy to write ‘try to be brave’ its so much harder to be so, nobody knows – but those who try to be – against such heavy odds.”
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Then exhibit 26 dated 4th July, addressed to Fremantle, Australia. There is nothing on the first page.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I am going to the second page, my Lord, page 83 at the top pf the page: ”In one part of it you say you are going to still write to me because it will help, in another part you say – ‘Perhaps I shant write to you from some ports – because I want to help you.’ I dont understand – I try to – but I cant – really I cant darlint – my head aches – aches with thinking sometimes. Last Friday last year – we went to see ‘Romance’ – then we were pals and this year we seem no further advanced. Why arnt you sending me something – I wanted you to – you never do what I ask you darlint – you still have your own way always – If I don’t mind the risk why should you? whatever happens cant be any worse than this existence – looking forward to nothing and gaining only ashes and dust and bitterness. I’m not going to ask dad about you at all –“
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not want any more.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: On the following page at the top of the letter: “Never mind, a little more bad feeling cant hurt – there is such a lot of it to contend with will you tell me if youd rather I didnt write? PEIDI. Have you studied ‘Bichloride of Mercury’?”
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Then that encloses a letter by Mr Graydon?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: YES.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not want that.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Who is Mr W. E. Graydon?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: He is the witness, my Lord, Mrs Thompson’s father.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He is the father?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT. Yes.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Exhibit 52 is the next on page 114. That is written to Colombo, dated July 14th. About halfway down the first page it says: “Its Thursday and Ive just come from the G.P.O. with the Aden mail. Isnt it late this time darlint it’s usually in on a Monday or at latest Tuesday. However Ive got it and thats all that really matters Darlingest boy didnt I say a long time ago ‘Dont trust Dan.’ Of course I didnt mean that in the sense you have told me he couldnt be trusted but my instinct was right wasn’t it? You will be careful wont you darlint pour moi? I dont want to ever know or think that my own boy is in any predicament of that sort – because Ill be too far away to help wont I? The thought of anything like that makes my blood cold – Ill always be worrying”.
And then there is a disquisition about “Bella Donna”.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I want that.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: About Bella Donna?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, page 115.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Perhaps I had better go straight on with the letter: “Im writing this letter rather early to Colombo – because Im going away tomorrow and I shant have an opportunity of writing to you again for a fortnight. Perhaps I could manage a letter card tho anyway you’ll understand wont you darlint pal? I dont mind a bit pencil as long as its words on paper – it doesn’t matter – because they’re what you say and think and do – a letter darlint is like food only you have food everyday to keep you alive and I have a letter every how many days? 14 sometimes and I have to keep alive in that all that time. About Bella Donna – no I dont agree with you about her darlint – I hate her – hate to think of her – I dont think other people made her what she was – that sensual pleasure loving greedy Bella Donna was always there. If she had originally been different – a good man like Nigel would have altered her darlint – she never knew what it was to be denied anything – she never knew ‘goodness’ as you and I know it – she was never interested in a good man – or any man unless he could appease her sensual nature. I don’t think she could have been happy with nothing – except Baroudi on a desert island she liked – no loved and lived for his money or what it could give her – the luxury of his yacht the secrecy with which he acted all bought with his money – that’s what she liked. Yes she was clever – admire the cleverness – but she was cunning there is a difference darlint, I dont admire that – I certainly dont think she would ever have killed Nigel with her hands – she would have been found out – she didn’t like that did she? being found out – it was that secret cunning in Baroudi that she admired so much – the cunning that matched her own. If she had loved Baroudi enough she could have gone to him – but she liked the security of being Nigel’s wife – for the monetary assets it held. She doesn’t seem a woman to me – she seems abnormal – a monster utterly selfish and self living. Darlint this is where we differ about women.”
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I want the paragraph on the next page, the second paragraph.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: “You do say silly things to me – ‘try a little bit every day not to think about me’ – doesn’t that ‘trying’ ever make it worse – it does for me always.”
Do you want any more?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: No.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: That is 52, my Lord; the next is 73. My Lord, I am reminded there is a passage I ought to have read on page 116. While discussing “The Fruitful Vine” she says: “About the ‘age’ passages in ‘The Fruitful Vine’ – I marked them because as I read they struck me as concerning you and I. Darlint I didn’t do it with malice every passage in any book I read that strikes me as concerning 2 pals I mark – it doesn’t matter what they are about. I hadn’t mentioned the subject any more had I? My veriest own lover I always think about the ‘difference’ when I’m with you and when I’m away sometimes when I’m happy for a little while I forget – but I always remember very soon – perhaps some little thing that you might say or do when we’re together reminds me. Sometimes I think and think until my brain goes round and round. ‘Shall I always be able to keep you.’ 8 years is such a long time – it’s not now – it’s later – when I’m ‘Joan’ and you’re not grown old enough to be ‘Darby’. When you’ve got something that you’ve never had before and something that you’re so happy to have found – you’re always afraid of it flying away – that’s how I feel about your love.”
That is the passage, my Lord. Then exhibit 63; that is dated August 28th; that is really put in for the purpose of dating another letter. The passage we rely on is: “Darlingest boy, today is the 27th and its on a Sunday, so I am writing this in the bathroom, I always like to send you greetings on the day – not the day before or the day after. Fourteen whole months have gone by now, darlint, its so terribly long. Neither you nor I thought we should have to wait all that long time did we? although I said I would wait 5 years – and I will darlint – its only 3 years and ten months now.”
Exhibit 54 is the next. There is no passage in that I want to refer to I think. If there is anything my learned friends want I will read.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I will read this, September 12th: “Darlint Pal, I’ve got nothing to talk to you about – I can’t think about anything at all – I can’t even look forward to seeing you. Now you are nearing England – I keep contrasting this home coming with the previous ones. I have been buoyed up with hope, bubbling with excitement. Just existing with an intense strung up feeling of seeing you and feeling you holding me in your two arms so tightly that it hurts but this time everything seems different. I don’t hear from you much you don’t talk to me by letter and help me and I don’t even know if I am going to see you. Darlint, I’m an awful little beast I know – I don’t want to be either – but I feel so hopeless – just drifting – but if you say ‘No I won’t see you’ then it shall be so, I’m quite reconciled to whatever verdict you send forth and shall say to myself ‘It is for the best it must be so.’ Darlint you do love me still tho don’t you? and you will go on loving me even if we don’t meet. Things here are going smoothly with me – I am giving all – and accepting everything and I think I am looked upon as ‘The Dutiful Wife’ whose spirit is at last bent to the will of her husband.’ This isn’t sarcasm or cynicism its exactly how I feel. I had a little letter from you – by what you said it was written on the 28th of July Ive had nothing – further there are heaps and heaps of questions in my letters to you. I wonder if you will answer them, or are they already dismissed? On Saturday I was so ill. I had to stop away – its not very often I give in so much as stopping away from business but on Saturday I really had to. I’m quite alright now tho’ darlint.”
That is all I want.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I do not know whether the next in the bundle of the jury’s is 28 or 29. It is either a very long one or a very short one.
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Exhibit 28.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: This letter is dated somewhere about the 23rd September.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He came home on the 21st.
ME CECIL WHITELEY: About the 19th my Lord.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Somewhere about that. Then the envelope is unaddressed: “I think I’m fearfully disappointed about you not getting in on Friday darlint. I’d been planning to get off early – rush to Ilford and do the shopping and rush up to meet you
There are only certain passages I want to read, the first of which is at the bottom of page 92: “Darlingest boy – I don’t quite understand you about ‘Pals,’ You say ‘Can we be Pals only, Peidi, it will make it easier.’ (in inverted commas) “Do you mean for always? Because if you do, No, no, a thousand times. We can’t be ‘pals’ only for always darlint – it’s impossible physically and mentally. Last time we had a long talk – I said, ‘Go away this time and forget all about me, forget you ever knew me, it will be easier – and better for you.’ Do you remember – and you refused, so now I’m refusing darlint – it must be still ‘the hope of all’ or ‘the finish of all.’ If you still only mean for a certain time and you think it best, darlint it shall be so – I don’t see how it will be easier myself – but it shall be as you say and wish, we won’t be our natural selves tho’ I know – we’ll be putting a kerb [curb] on ourselves the whole time – like an iron band that won’t expand. Please don’t let what I have written deter you from any decision darlint – I don’t want to do that – truly I’d like to do what you think best.”
That is all on that page.
Then page 94, in the middle “You went and slept at Norwood that night and didn’t come back to me until the Friday. You sounded very despondent when you say about ‘Time passes and with it some of the pain – Fate ordained our lot to be hard.’ Does some of the pain you feel pass with time? Perhaps it does – things seem so much easier to forget with a man – his environment is always different – but with a woman its always the same. Darlint my pain gets less and less bearable – it hurts more and more every day, every hour really. ‘Other ways only involve the parting of you and I, Peidi, nobody deserves anything more than I do.’ I don’t understand this part – try and explain to me please – have you lost heart and given up hope? Tell me if you have darlint – don’t bear it all alone.”
Is there any more just here?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: No.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: The bottom of page 95: “No, I don’t think the man who mistook me for ‘Romance’ was decent darlint, but I think he was quite genuine in mistaking me, II dont think it was a ruse on his part. Yes, darlint you are jealous of him – but I want you to be – he has the right by law to all that you have the right to by nature and love – yes darlint be jealous, so much that you will do something desperate.”
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I want the next.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: “Ive not sent a wire to Plymouth to you – Ive changed my mind – I see you left Gibraltar on the 19th and perhaps you will get in Saturday morning – then I shall send you a wire to Tilbury to meet me in the afternoon – if its at all possible for you. Before I finish up this letter I have a confession to make. Darlingest about the watch – I didn’t send it to Plymouth – purposely. I felt that you were not going to come home and see me this time and the feeling was awful – horrid, and I felt that if you refused I couldnt make you. And then I was tempted – I thought, ‘Yes I can make him – I wont send his watch – I’ll tell him if he wants it – he’s to come to 168 and fetch it. Darlint, was it small? if it was, real big love must make people think of small things, because real, big love made PEIDI.
Now 55 is the next one, and I do not understand it, but I will read it: “Darlint, Pal, please try and use – pour moi, and don’t buy a pouch, je vais, pour vous – one of these days”. It is 20th September 1922 from the “Daily Sketch”.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I wish my learned friend would translate that for me.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I could only suggest it is ”I am going for you”; it is doggerel French. “Chicken broth” is the cutting: “Chicken broth death; rat poison consumed by fowls kills woman”. “The report states ‘That death was due to consuming broth made from a chicken which had eaten poison, containing a rat virus, was the medical explanation at the resumed inquest at Shoreditch yesterday of Mrs Sarah Feldman (34) of Reliance Square, Horton’”.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Is that the only cutting?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What are the others, Sir Henry?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: There seems to be one other but it has no heading to it “Love is sacrificed”. I do not know what it refers to, but there is no cutting.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Love is sacrificed”?
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, my Lord.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Exhibit 60 is the next, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Exhibit 47 is not it?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Those are telegrams, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: 60 is next.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: My Lord, we date this as accurately as we can, the 1st or 2nd October from Mrs Thompson. It begins “Darlingest lover of mine, thank you, thank you, oh thank you a thousand times for Friday [29 Sept 1922] – it was lovely – its always lovely to go out with you. And then Saturday – yes I did feel happy – I didn’t think a teeny bit about anything in this world, except being with you – and all Saturday evening I was thinking about you” – my Lord, there was only one Friday and Saturday in this last leave.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes, she was at home all the Friday and Saturday; it must have been written on the Sunday.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I do not know whether my friend wants anything on the first page. Then the second page, page 129. It says: “I tried so hard to find a way out tonight darlingest but he was suspicious and still is – I suppose we must make a study of this deceit for some time longer. I hate it. I hate every lie I have to tell to see you – because lies seem such small mean things to attain such an object as ours. We ought to be able to use great big things for great big love like ours. I’d love to be able to say ‘I’m going to see my lover tonight.’ If I did he would prevent me – there would be scenes and he would come to 168 and interfere and I couldn’t bear that – I could be beaten all over at home and still be defiant – but 168 it’s different. It’s my living – you wouldn’t let me live on him would you and I shouldn’t want to – darlint its funds that are our stumbling block – until we have those we can do nothing. Darlingest find me a job abroad. I’ll go tomorrow and not say I was going to a soul and not have one little regret. I said I wouldn’t think – that I’d try to forget – circumstances – Pal, help me to forget again – I have succeeded up to now – but its thinking of tonight [Monday] and tomorrow [Tuesday] when I can’t see you and feel you holding me. Darlint – do something tomorrow night will you? something to make you forget. I’ll be hurt I know, but I want you to hurt me – I do really – the bargain now, seems so one sided – so unfair – but how can I alter it?”
Is there anything more there. “Don’t forget what we talked in the Tea Room, I’ll still risk and try if you will – we only have 3 ¾ years left darlingest.”
My Lord, there is one other letter, No,. 64, but we are quite unable to set a date on it. There is no means of dating it at all. [actually it can be dated to c. Tuesday 1 November 1921]
“Plain envelope. Darlingest boy, thank you – I know what you say is really true, but darlint it does feel sometimes that we are drifting. Don’t you ever feel like that – and it hurts so – oh ever so much. Yes, we are both going to fight until we win – darlint, fight hard, in real earnest – you are going to help me first and then I am going to help you and when you have done your share and I have done mine we shall have given to each other what we both ‘desire most in this world’ ourselves, isn’t this right, but darlint don’t fail in your share of the bargain, because I am helpless without your help – you understand. Darlint, this is the one instance in which I cannot stand alone I cannot help myself (at first) – the one instance when I want a man to lean on and that one man is and can only – always – be you. Please, please darlint take me seriously – I want you to – I wanted you to before and you didn’t. Tell me when you see me next time that you will darlint, for certain, remember Peidi is relying on you and you understand me and know I mean what I say and tell me you know I wont fail or shirk when the time or opportunity comes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Can you tell me where that was discovered? Was that in his pocket or his box?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: In his box.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is an older letter?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: An older letter. “Darlint, you say you are looking forward to Thursday night, is this really true? somehow I feel it isn’t, I have done ever since the 9th and when I think about it I feel more so about it. You have not asked me all the time you’ve been home to go with you – except to a dance – which I refused – because I want to wait for that time – that first dance until it will be a real pleasure, without any pain and it can’t be just now darlint can it? and when you said you’d take me to lunch and then didn’t come and I’m wondering – I can’t help it darlint if I’ve done right in asking you to take me out. And apart from this feeling that I have, there is that ever present question of money – darlint you’ve never told me this time once about money – what you had and what you spent and I felt hurt – horribly darlint, especially about the suit – last time you told me about the coat – but not this time – why the difference darlint? And as I haven’t any money to give you, at least not much and perhaps you haven’t any I wish you weren’t going to take me out darlint and even now its not too late – if you’d only tell me, be quite frank about it darlint, I’ll understand – surely you know I will. I didn’t intend to mention this darlint, but neither you nor I must harbor thoughts that each other doesn’t know, must we, we must be one in thoughts and wishes and action always darlint, so I have. Please understand how I feel and know I love you.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are putting in only one letter from him; is that the only one?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: No, there are two letters, my Lord undated. Perhaps they had better be read.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Exhibits 30 and 31 are they?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I think the evidence rather points to their being late because the other ones were destroyed. Exhibits 30 and 31.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: She says they were destroyed, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Let me see the originals of these (handed).
MR ROLAND OLIVER: I do not know what the word on the top of No. 30 is.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: G.M.M.C.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: My lord, I have got the original.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: G.M.M.C.; it is supposed to be “Good morning ma cherie”.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not think it is a C. It is a salutation of some sort; it does not matter.
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Darling Peidi Mia. Tonight was impulse – natural – I couldn’t resist – I had to hold you darling little sweetheart of mine – darlint I was afraid – I thought you were going to refuse to kiss me – darlint little girl – I love you so much and the only way I can control myself is by not seeing you and I’m not going to do that. Darlint Peidi Mia – I must have you – I love you darlint – logic and what others call reason do not enter into our lives, and where two halves are concerned. I had no intention darling of doing that – it just happened thats all – I’m glad now chere – darlint when you suggested the occupied carriage, I didn’t want to go in it – did you think that perhaps I did – so that there would have been no opportunity for me, to break the conditions that I had stipulated – darlint I felt quite confident that I would be able to keep my feelings down – I was wrong Peidi. I was reckoning on will power over ordinary forces – but I was fighting what? not ordinary forces – nothing was fighting the whole of me. Peidi you are my magnet – I cannot resist darlint – you draw me to you now and always, I shall never be able to see you and remain impassive. Darlint Peidi Mia Idol mine – I love you – always – always Ma Chere. Last night when I read your questions I didn’t know how to answer them – I have now Peidi? Darlint I don’t think I can talk about other things tonight – I want to hold you so tightly. I’m going to tonight in my sleep. Bon Nuit Ma Petite, cherchez bien pour votre Freddy.”
The next one is exhibit 31.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My Lord, the date of this next letter is almost certainly October 1st. In the fifth line of the letter it says: “The hope for all or the finish of all”, and that is an extract from the letter of the 5th September. Then there is a reference to being in the park on Saturday, and that was the only Saturday they could have been together.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That would make it the Saturday before this October 1st ?
MR ROLAND OLIVER: Yes, my Lord. “Peidi Darlint. Sunday evening, Everybody is out and now I can talk to you. I wonder what you are doing now my own little girl. I hope that Bill [one of her younger brothers and a sailor] has not been the cause of further unpleasantness darlint. Darlint little girl do you remember saying ‘the hope for all.’ ‘Or the finish of all.’ Peidi the finish of all seems terrible even to contemplate. What darlint would it be in practice? Peidi Mia I love you more and more every day – it grows darlint and will keep on growing. Darlint in the park – our Park on Saturday, you were my ‘little devil’ – I was happy then Peidi – were you? I wasn’t thinking of other things – only you darlint – you was my entire world – I love you so much my Peidi – I mustnt ever think of losing you, darlint if I was a poet I could write volumes – but I [am] not – I suppose at the most Ive only spoken about 2 dozen words today I don’t try not to speak – but I have no wish to – Im not spoken to much so have no replies to make. Darlint about the watch – I never really answered your question – I only said I wasnt cross. I cant understand you thinking that the watch would draw me to you – where you yourself wouldn’t – is that what you meant darlint or have I misunderstood you. The way you have written looks to me as though you think that I think more of the watch than I do of you – Tell me Peidi Mia that I misunderstood your meaning. Darlint Peidi Mia – I do remember you coming to me in the little room and I think I understand what it cost you – a lot more than it could ever now. When I think about that I think how nearly we came to be parted for ever – if you had not forfeited your pride darlint I don’t think there would ever have been yesterday or tomorrow. My darlint darlint little girl I love you more than I will ever be able to show you. Darlint you are the centre – the world goes on round you, but you ever remain my world – the other part some things are essential – others are on the outskirts and sometimes so far removed from my mind that they seem non existent. Darling Pidi Mia – I answered the question about the world ‘Idle’ [idol] on Saturday – I never mentioned it. Yes darlint – I remember you being asked if you had found ‘The great lover.’ It was when you sang ‘A Tumble Down Nook.’ What have I found darlint? The darlingest little sweetheart in the whole world and ‘The Only Pal.’ Now darlint pal – Im anxious about Avis – I hope you have found out all there is to know of the other night – I want you to tell me. Supposing she did stay with some fellow and she tells you and asks you not to tell anybody – are you going to tell me Peidi? Darlint I’m enclosing a slip for you for the books in case I am unable to get them myself – also will you get the ‘Tempting of Paul Chester’ Alice and Claude Askew. There is 13/- to pay on the others – but darlint I hope to be able to get them myself, also and principally I want to drink Beaune with you. Good night now darlingest – dearest little sweetheart and big pal, Freddy.”
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is the case for the prosecution.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: My Lord, the jury of course will understand that in addition to those letters there were 33 other ones on which the prosecution do not rely and which are not put in.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes, the jury understand.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER BYWATERS.
DEFENCE
MR WHITELEY: My Lord, I call Bywaters.
FREDERICK EDWARD FRANCIS BYWATERS (Prisoner)
Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Frederick Bywaters, when you arrived home from your last voyage you went to stay with your mother at Westow Hill, Norwood.
BYWATERS: Yes.
Speak up so that members of the jury can hear you. Had your mother been living there for some time, about two and a half years?
BYWATERS: That is quite right.
Previous to that was she living in Manor Park?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Were you living with her there?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Were the Graydons also living in Manor Park?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you meet the Graydon boys at school?
BYWATERS: I did.
Is that the way you got to know the family?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Had you been on good terms ever since with the family of Graydon?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Now I want to take you to last year. Had you been away between February the 26thand June the 4th last year?
BYWATERS: Yes, to Australia.
You had been on a long voyage?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: 1921?
MR WHITELEY: 1921, my Lord. (To the Witness) You arrived at Tilbury on June 4th, and did you subsequently go for a holiday to the Isle of Wight?
BYWATERS: I did.
Was Mrs Thompson also taking a holiday at the Isle of Wight?
BYWATERS: Yes, with her husband.
With her husband?
BYWATERS: Yes, and Miss Graydon.
Mr and Mrs Thompson and Avis Graydon – was anybody else there?
BYWATERS: Myself, and we met friends, Mr and Mrs Vellender.
The Witness in this case?
BYWATERS: Yes.
How long were you in the Isle of Wight?
BYWATERS: One week.
On the 18th of June did you go to stay with the Thompsons?
I did.
At 41 Kensington Gardens?
BYWATERS: That is so.
How came you to go there?
BYWATERS: Invitation from Mr Thompson.
How long were you with them staying in their house?
BYWATERS: Till August the 5th.
The 5th of August. Bank Holiday last year was August the 1st; would it be August the 1st ?
BYWATERS: No, August the 5th.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: August the 5th he says.
THE WITNESS. Yes.
MR WHITELEY: How came you to leave?
BYWATERS: There was a quarrel between Mr Thompson and his wife.
Bywaters: I want you to tell us exactly what the quarrel was, and what happened?
BYWATERS: There was a quarrel over a very trivial matter, so small; it was a pin that caused the trouble. Mr Thompson started to knock his wife about.
When was this?
BYWATERS: August the 1st.
That was the Bank Holiday?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Where was it?
BYWATERS: It was in the morning room.
Just tell is, how did he knock his wife about?
BYWATERS: He threw her across the room, and in her passage across the room she overturned a chair. I was standing outside and heard the bang and ran inside.
By MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Then you did not hear the quarrel. I thought you said you heard the quarrel?
BYWATERS: The quarrel started in the garden.
MR WHITELEY: Did you hear what the quarrel was?
BYWATERS: Yes, Mrs Thompson, who was sewing, and Mrs Thompson said “I want a pin,” and I said, “I will go and get you one”.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I am afraid I cannot hear.
MR WHITELEY: It is very important; speak slowly, and keep your voice up, will you?
BYWATERS: Yes. Mrs Thompson was sewing in the garden. She said “I want a pin”. I said “I will go and get you one”. I went inside and got the pin, and when I came outside again into the garden they were arguing. The argument dropped for the time being, and we went inside to tea. Thompson came in and created further trouble.
And then there was this struggle, was there?
BYWATERS: Yes, there was a struggle.
Bywaters: Had you been taking Mrs Thompson about?
BYWATERS: No.
You had been out with her?
BYWATERS: With Mr Thompson.
What was the result of that row?
BYWATERS: I left.
At whose request?
BYWATERS: Mr Thompson’s.
At Mr Thompson’s?
BYWATERS: Thompson’s request, and my own inclination.
MR WHITELEY: I did not hear that.
MR JUSTICE SHEARAN: “And my own inclination”.
MR WHITELEY: Yes. Now you were in London between August the 5th and September the 9th?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Very nearly a month?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Just tell us at once, Bywaters, were you taking Mrs Thompson out during that time?
BYWATERS: I was meeting her occasionally.
What was the state of your feelings to her and hers to you?
BYWATERS: We were friends.
Did her husband know you were taking her out then?
BYWATERS: Yes, I think he knew we were meeting.
Had you then fallen in love with her?
BYWATERS: I was fond of her. I had never mentioned it to her though.
We know what subsequently happened, but at that time you were not on those terms?
BYWATERS: No
Friendly terms?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Bywaters, when was it first that you were in love with one another, what date?
BYWATERS: Well, I suppose it was just before I went away.
Before you went away in September?
BYWATERS: Yes, just before then.
You were away from September the 9th to October the 29th?
BYWATERS: That is so.
None of the letters which have been produced in this case relate to that period at all, but in fact did you get letters from her?
BYWATERS: Yes, oh yes.
And did you reply to them?
Yes.
I do not want to go into any detail, but were you writing to one another love letters?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When you came back on October the 29th you were only in London I think for just a fortnight, from October the 29th to November the 11th?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you see Mrs Thompson practically every day?
BYWATERS: Yes.
I want to ask you this; I ought to have asked you before. Before you left in August did you have any conversation with Mr Thompson in the presence of Mrs Thompson as to separation or divorce; just think?
BYWATERS: Yes.
You did not tell us about that. Just tell us what it was?
BYWATERS: On this day of the trouble there was a conversation between the three of us about a separation.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What day?
BYWATERS: August the 1st.
Between you and she?
BYWATERS: No. no. between the three of us.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Go back to that.
MR WHITELEY: I wanted you to tell is when I asked you before. Tell us what happened with regard to it?
BYWATERS: Thompson suggested a separation. He said to his wife: “You will get a separation”; and she said “Yes, I want a separation, but you have mentioned that before, but you only whine back to me and retract your statement”.
He said that to her?
BYWATERS: No. she said that to him.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Are you speaking of a conversation between you and her, or between her and her husband?
BYWATERS: Between her and her husband.
MR WHITELEY: What did Thompson say?
BYWATERS: “We will come to an agreement and have a separation”, and she said “Yes, I should like that, but you make a statement and then whine back to me and retract that statement; you have done that before”.
So that you heard the matter of a separation being discussed between Mr & Mrs Thompson before you left and joined your ship?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When you came back on October the 29th you had received a number of love letters from Mrs Thompson, and you had replied to them in the same strain?
BYWATERS: Yes.
As to Mrs Thompson; did you have any conversation with her about this matter of a separation between her and her husband?
BYWATERS: It was a general conversation.
When you got back – I am now taking you to when you got back in October – did you talk to Mrs Thompson, or her to you, about the desirability of her getting a separation from her husband?
BYWATERS: Yes; I said to her, “Cannot you come to any amicable understanding or agreement with your husband to get a separation”?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is this what you said to her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR WHITELEY: Not, of course, in Mr Thompson’s presence?
BYWATERS: No.
Yes; tell us about it; we want to know. What did she say then?
BYWATERS: She said “I keep on asking, but it seems no good”.
No good?
BYWATERS: No good at all.
At that visit home – that fortnight at the end of October and the beginning of November – did you ever see Mr Thompson?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Where was it?
A I went to Kensington Gardens.
To his house.
BYWATERS: Yes, and I made a request to him that he should have a separation. It was a Saturday afternoon. I had taken Mrs Thompson out previously, and apparently he had been waiting at the Station for her and he had seen the two of us together, and he made a statement to Mrs Thompson: “He is not a man or else he would ask my permission to take you out”. The following day she repeated that statement to me.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The following day she repeated that conversation to you?
MR WHITELEY: What her husband said to her?: “That you were not a man to take her out without his permission”?
BYWATERS: Yes.
In consequence of that did you go and see Mr Thompson?
BYWATERS: Yes, I did, and he said I ran away from him, and I went and saw him. I told him that I did not see him at the station.
You went to make that clear to Mr Thompson?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Was she present there too?
BYWATERS: Part of the time.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You called on him and she was there part of the time.
MR WHITELEY: At that time was anything discussed between you and Mr Thompson about a separation or divorce?’
BYWATERS: Oh yes, that was the theme of the conversation.
What was it?
BYWATERS: I said: “Why do you not come to an amicable separation; either have a separation or you can get a divorce”, and he hummed and hawed about it; he was undecided. He said “Yes” – “No”, and I do not see it concerns you”; but I said “You are making Edie’s life a hell; you know she is not happy with you”; he said “Well, I have got her and I will keep her”.
Yes.
BYWATERS: Eventually he promised me he would not knock her about any more. I extracted that promise from him; that he would not beat her.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You extracted the promise from him.
BYWATERS: I extracted it.
MR WHITELEY: But you could get no understanding with regard to the separation or divorce?
No.
I think you left on November the 11th ?
BYWATERS: That is so.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did you ever see him again?
BYWATERS: Yes, I met him in the evening of the Saturday, the Saturday evening at Mrs Thompson’s mother’s.
You met her at the Graydons?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR WHITELEY: At the Graydons’; is that right?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Then you had gone to your ship on the 11th, and you were way until January the 7th.
BYWATERS: Yes, that is so.
The first letter that I think I need to refer to – my Lord, I do not know whether the witness might have a copy of these letters in front of him.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Certainly.
(Bundle of letters handed to Witness)
MR WHITELEY: I am going to ask you about one or two things in these early ones. Look at page 132, Ex. 62. There is a passage: “All I could think about last night was that compact we made; shall we have to carry it through; don’t let us darlint”. What was the compact Bywaters?
BYWATERS: Suicide pact.
Suicide?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Who suggested that?
BYWATERS: Mrs Thompson had suggested it.
Did you ever make any agreement that you should commit suicide?
BYWATERS: Well, I suggested it, but I never intended to carry it out – as a way of easing matters.
Speak up.
BYWATERS: As a way of calming her.
Calming her?
BYWATERS: Yes
“All I could think about last night was that compact we made. Shall we have to carry it thro” Don’t let us darlint. I’d like to live and be happy – not for a little while, but for all the while you still love me. Death seemed horrible last night – when you think about it darlint, it does seem a horrible thing to die, when you have never been happy, really happy, for one little minute”. I am going to ask you at once, Bywaters, at any time was there any agreement between you and Mrs Thompson to poison her husband?
BYWATERS: Never – there was never such an agreement.
Was there any agreement that any violence should be used against her husband?
BYWATERS: No, the greatest violence was separation.
As far as you could tell, reading these letters, did you ever believe in your own mind that she herself had ever given any poison to her husband?
BYWATERS: No, it never entered my head at all; she had been reading books.
And one sees the sort of women she is by these letters; continually reading books and talking about characters in the books.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: If you want the witness to be effective it is not use leading him.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I want to know this; on board had you some quinine?
BYWATERS: I had, I used it myself.
What form was it in?
BYWATERS: It is a tablet, 5 grain tablet, white.
Did you ever give any of that quinine to Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: I did.
Apart from that quinine did you ever give her anything else?
BYWATERS: I did not.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean any other drug, I suppose?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Any other drug?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you ever give her any poison of any sort or description?
BYWATERS: No, nothing at all.
Quinine has a bitter taste, I believe.
BYWATERS: Most bitter; very unpleasant.
Now we know this long letter.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I want to understand it. Will you ask him who “Dan” is?
MR WHITELEY: I will, my Lord; who is “Dan”?
BYWATERS: A friend of mine.
Where was “Dan”?
BYWATERS: A shipmate.
On the “Morea”?
BYWATERS: He has left the “Morea”.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What was his position on the ship?
BYWATERS: Head waiter.
On the “Morea” with you?
BYWATERS: Yes.
On each of these voyages.
BYWATERS: Yes, except the last.
There are other two letters which you got before you came back on January 7th; one of them is Ex. 28, page 86. In that letter she enclosed a number of cuttings. Was that a habit of hers to send you a large number of cuttings from various newspapers?
BYWATERS: Instead of sending a newspaper; things that appeared interesting she would send
Are the cuttings with regard to cases of all sorts?
BYWATERS: Oh yes.
Which you were interested in reading?
BYWATERS: Yes.
You got back on January 7th, and then you were on leave between January 7th and the 20th?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you see Mrs Thompson frequently during that fortnight?
BYWATERS: Yes.
And was the question of getting a separation or a divorce discussed you?
BYWATERS: Yes, she had still complained of being ill-treated
What did she say?
BYWATERS: She said “Things are just the same; they get no better.”
What were the chances?
BYWATERS: Of getting a separation?
Yes.
BYWATERS: They were minute to a certain extent. Thompson would never agree to it.
Then you went away, and you were away to March 17th – you were away from from 20th January to 17th March?
BYWATERS: Yes.
During that time you got the letter, Ex. 13?
BYWATERS: What page is that, please?
It starts on page 13 – I am sorry, it is Ex. 15 I want, page 18. The letter starts: “Darlint. You must do something this time. I’m not really impatient – but opportunities come and go by – they have to – because I’m helpless, and I think and think, and think – perhaps it will never come again”. Now what does that refer to?
BYWATERS: I hardly know.
Page 18: “You must do something”. What was it she had been wanting you to do?
BYWATERS: Take her away.
It is suggested you know here by the prosecution that that means you were going to do something in connection with her husband. Is there anything in that?
BYWATERS: That is entirely wrong.
What?
It is entirely wrong.
Did she ask you more than once to take her away?
BYWATERS: Oh yes.
Tell us about it Bywaters. Was it a genuine demand by her or not?
BYWATERS: Well, she appeared to want to go away, but she used to get very hysterical. She was of a highly strung nature.
Mr JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Highly what?
MR WHITELEY: Of a highly strung nature, and very hysterical.
By Mr JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did she ask you to take her away or not?
BYWATERS: Oh yes, my Lord.
MR WHITELEY: When she said: “Try and help me”; in what way was it she had asked you to help her?
BYWATERS: In regard to getting a separation.
On March 14th she writes you in Ex. 20; you will find it on page 48 – turn over: “I am not going to talk to you any more – I can’t, and I don’t think I’ve shirked, have I? Except darlint to ask you again to think out all the plans and methods for me to wait so anxiously – for the time when we’ll be with each other – even tho’ it’s only once”. What were the “plans and methods ” which she had asked you to think out?
BYWATERS: Going away together or the separation.
Was there any discussion as to what she was to do abroad?
BYWATERS: She would go abroad to a millinery business.
Bywaters, I think your wages were about £2 a week, were they not?
BYWATERS: They were more than that; they were about £4 roughly.
You earned?
BYWATERS: Yes.
You were visiting various countries and various cities?
BYWATERS: Oh yes.
And she was writing to you at these various countries and various places?
BYWATERS: Oh yes.
Were you making any enquiries?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Any particular place?
BYWATERS: Bombay was mentioned, or Australia.
Where there might be an opening for her?
BYWATERS: Yes, France; she mentioned Marseilles as well to me.
What?
BYWATERS: France.
You came back, I think in March last, the 17th .
BYWATERS: Yes.
And you were home a fortnight up to the 17th ?
BYWATERS: That is so.
You told us that you had given her this quinine. Can you tell is when it was you gave it to her?
BYWATERS: That would be the time.
At that visit?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Were you seeing her constantly then?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When you went away on the 31stshe wrote you a letter, Ex. 50 p.109, in which she said: “This time really will be the last you will go away– like things are won’t it? We said it before darlint I know, and we failed – but there will be no failure this next time, darlint; there mustn’t be”. What failure had there been?
BYWATERS: The failure to get a separation – failure to take her abroad.
Take her abroad?
BYWATERS: Yes.
“You’ll never leave me behind again, never, unless things are different”. What does that mean?
That means unless she could get a separation I would not go to sea any more alone. I would not leave her again unless I took her with me, go with me you see.
In Ex. 17 on April 1st last, she talks about an electric light globe. Did you pay any attention to that at all?
BYWATERS: No, I think she was trying to put herself in the same place as Belladonna in the book “Bella Donna.”
Did you attach any importance to it at all?
BYWATERS: No, mere melodrama I thought.
That is Ex. 17. Now Ex. 18, p.38 in this copy: “I used a light bulb three times.” Then look at Ex. 19 on May 1st, p.44: “We shall have to wait if we fail again darlint.” What does “fail” mean?
BYWATERS: Another attempt to get a separation.
Lower down: “We’ll wait, eh darlint, and you’ll try and get some money and then we can go away, and not worry about anybody or anything. You said it was enough for an elephant. Perhaps it was, but you don’t allow for the taste making only a small quantity to be taken. It sounded like a reproach; was it meant to be?” Just tell me what the reference to the elephant and the quinine is?
BYWATERS: 30 grains of quinine taken by Mrs Thompson.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did you tell anybody it was enough for an elephant?
BYWATERS: I told Mrs Thompson.
She is repeating what you told her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
“I did tell her enough for an elephant”.
BYWATERS: There was no question on doing anything to an elephant; it had no meaning. It was enough for an elephant to take 30 grains of quinine.
MR WIHTELEY: It is a more than usual dose, is it?
BYWATERS: It is a large dose.
What is the usual does you take?
BYWATERS: I took ten grains when I was bad with malaria.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You say ten grains is enough for an elephant?
BYWATERS: No, 30 grains.
MR WHITELEY: Thirty grains is the amount you gave Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Now Ex. 22 is the next one, p. 62; it is a quotation from “Belladonna” at the beginning?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you attach any importance to that?
BYWATERS: That it came from a book, that is all; it is a quotation.
You arrived home on May the 26th ?
BYWATERS: Yes.
After the date of arriving home did you pay any attention at all to what she had said in these letters to you received on that voyage between March and May?
BYWATERS: No
Any more than you had before?
BYWATERS: No, nothing at all.
Were you at home for a fortnight between May 26th and June 9th?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Were you seeing her constantly then?
BYWATERS: Oh yes.
And was the matter discussed as to what you were going to do?
BYWATERS: There was still the question of a separation. There was always the question – separation or a divorce.
Now you went away on June 9th, and you were away right up to September 23rd ?
BYWATERS: Yes.
You were way about three months?
BYWATERS: Three and a half months.
You were getting these various letters during the whole of that time?
BYWATERS: Yes.
I want you to tell my lord, and the gentlemen of the jury, did you correspond with her as much on this voyage as you had previously?
BYWATERS: No, I did not. The reason was I thought that if I ceased to correspond with her, her life would not be so bad.
Life would not be so hard for her you mean?
BYWATERS: That is so.
These references in these various letters about not writing to her, and so forth, what do they refer to?
BYWATERS: They refer to when I had not written much from different ports.
Now Bywaters we have got three of your letters which have been produced in this case, Exs 14, 30, & 31. I am coming to Exs 30 & 31 later on, but the letters you wrote to her, were they similar to those?
BYWATERS: Oh yes. What page is that. Can I look at them, please?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Look at them.
THE WITNESS: What page are they?
MR WHITELEY: Ex. 30 is on 97, and Ex. 31 on page 98. I will come to them in their proper order. It is agreed that Ex. 30 was written by you on the 30th September after you arrived, and Ex. 31 on October the 1st?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What I am asking you is were the letters you were writing to her on your last voyage similar to that?
BYWATERS: Yes, oh yes.
Did you ever write a letter suggesting violence or poison?
BYWATERS: No, never.
Now Ex. 23 at page 72: “I’ll try to be patient darling. You talk about that cage you are in– that’s how I feel– only worse if it can be so”. Had you written to her telling her to be patient?
BYWATERS: Yes, oh, yes.
Page 72. June 13th is ger first letter after you started on your last voyage. Ex. 24 on p.74: “Darlingest Boy. I’m trying very hard – very, very hard to B.B.” Does that mean “be brave”?
BYWATERS: That means “be brave”; that was my suggestion.
Had you written to her a letter and told her to be brave?
BYWATERS: Yes, oh yes.
Then it goes on: “When he saw this had no effect on me he got up and stormed. I said exactly what you told me, to and he replied that’s what I wanted and he was not going to give it to me, it would make things far too easy for both of you (meaning you and me) especially for you he said”. What had you told her to tell him?
BYWATERS: A separation, and if she could not get a separation suggest a divorce, and she would provide him with the evidence; she would go to that extent and provide him with the evidence for a divorce.
You told her to say it?
BYWATERS: Yes, I told her to.
Is that what she is referring to here?
BYWATERS: That is what she is referring to, yes.
Then there is what I refer to as the Sydney letter of June 20th, Ex. 25, p. 77, in which she says: “I wish you had taken me with you, darlint”.
BYWATERS: Yes.
Had she suggested to you that you should?
BYWATERS: Yes, oh yes, there was a suggestion that we should go away the following year.
1923?
BYWATERS: Yes, I had partly made arrangements in Australia.
“Now when you are not near darlint I wish we had taken the easiest way”. What was that?
BYWATERS: Suicide.
That was the —
BYWATERS: That was the easiest way out of it.
Ten later on, on page 80 she says “What an utterly absurd thing to say to me, ‘Don’t be too disappointed’”. In what connection had you written to her telling her not to be disappointed?
BYWATERS: At not receiving a letter, and I said in the letter I had started to make arrangements in Australia, or I was going to make arrangements in Australia, but she could not expect too much yet, and was not to be disappointed.
She writes to you saying: “it’s so easy to write ‘try to be brave’, it’s so much harder to be so, nobody knows – but those who try to be”. Had you written to her to that effect?
BYWATERS: Oh yes, yes.
Then Ex. 26, p.83: “In one part of it” (she is referring to a letter to you) “you say you are going to still write to me because it will help, in another part you say ‘perhaps I shant write to you from some ports because I want to help you.’” You had written to her to that effect?
BYWATERS: Yes, I had.
That you were not going to write?
BYWATERS: That is right, yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are passing one on page 83.
MR WHITELEY: I am very sorry, my lord, I am much obliged. “Why are not you sending me something – I wanted you to, you never do what I ask you darlint you still have your own way always. If I don’t mind the risk, why should you? Whatever happens can’t be any worse than this existence – looking forward to nothing and gaining only ashes and dust and bitterness”. What was it she had asked you to send her?
BYWATERS: What page is this, please?
Page 83, Ex. 26. It is after “Last Friday last year we went to see ‘Romance’. Then we were pals and this year we seem no further advanced”. You had been talking about not writing, you know?
BYWATERS: Yes, it was more letters – sending more letters.
Sending more letters to her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Where did the risk come with regard to these letters?
BYWATERS: Well the risk was people seeing them; she did not want anybody to see them; that was all. That was the risk.
Was there always the difficulty as to where these letters should be sent to?
BYWATERS: Yes, oh yes.
There had been difficulty over it, had there?
BYWATERS: Yes, great difficulty.
Then in Ex. 52 she says on p.116: “You do say silly things to me – ‘try a little bit every day not to think about me’”. That is what you had been telling her to do, is it?
BYWATERS: That is what I said.
At the end of this letter, p.116: “Sometimes I think and think until my brain goes round and round. ‘Shall I always be able to keep you’. Eight years is such a long time”. What was she referring to there?
BYWATERS: Her age and mine.
She was eight years older than you are?
BYWATERS: That is true and she felt it.
I want you to look at Ex. 63, p.140. This is written on August 28th : “Darlingest. Today is the 27th, and it is on a Sunday, so I am writing this in the bathroom; I always like to send you greetings on the day – not the day before or the day after”. What was that the anniversary of?
BYWATERS: The 27th June 1921, my birthday.
Your birthday?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What year?
BYWATERS: June 1921, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: This is August.
THE SOLICITOR-GENRTAL: My Lord, I will see what the postmark is.
BYWATERS: Yes, it was.
MR WHITELEY: I will read the rest of the letter: “Fourteen whole months have gone by now, darlint, it’s so terribly long” – was it the day in the month that it was an anniversary of?
BYWATERS: Yes, the 27th is the anniversary.
Neither you nor I thought we should have to wait all that long time, did we, altho’ I said I would wait five years, and I will darlint – it is only three years and ten months now” – what was the waiting five years?
BYWATERS: On 27th June 1921 Mrs Thompson told me she was unhappy and I said, “Let me be a pal to you, let me help you if I can.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: This was when you were in the Isle of Wight?
BYWATERS: No, we had come back.
MR WHITELEY: You had come back, and were staying in Thompson’s house?
BYWATERS: Yes, we had been having an argument, Mrs Thompson and I – just a silly argument, and she suddenly burst into tears –
What I want you to tell us is what is the waiting five years?
BYWATERS: I advised her to wait; not to give up hope, and not commit suicide.
Wait for what?
BYWATERS: To wait five years.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: She rather suggested suicide, and she said “Let us rather put it off for five years”?
MR WHITELEY: I want you to explain this. She says: “Neither you nor I thought we should have to wait all through that long time, did we, I said I would wait five years, and I will darling; it is only three years and ten months now”. What was to happen at the end of the five years?
BYWATERS: Well, there was hardly anything definite; it was just an arrangement to put off anything – she committing suicide. I extracted a promise from her to wait five years, so that she should not commit suicide.
During that five years was there to be any suggestion of a separation or a divorce?
BYWATERS: Oh yes, five years to try and get it – five years to try and get it.
And if there had been no divorce, no separation in five years, what then did she suggest?
BYWATERS: Either going away entirely – the two of us going away – or suicide.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I ask your Lordship if you will require me to finish my cross examination this evening, if I commence it, because I have an engagement elsewhere?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: We will rise in a few minutes now. I am waiting for the letters to be finished.
MR WHITELEY: If I might bring it down to the arrival in November (To the witness). I want you to look at Ex., 21, p.121. This is one of the last letters she wrote to you before you got home: “I’ve got nothing to talk to you about – I can’t think about anything at all – I cannot even look forward to seeing you later on. I don’t hear from you much, you don’t talk to me by letter and help me, and I don’t even know if I am going to see you”. Tell my Lord and the jury how she came to written that.
BYWATERS: I had ceased corresponding with her. I had said I would not see her when I came to England, as it would not be so hard for her to bear; her life would be easier perhaps if I did not see her or correspond with her.
Were you doing that for her sake?
BYWATERS: I wanted to help her, yes.
You wanted to help her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Then on September 19th we got Ex. 28 in which she says at the bottom of p.92: “Can we be pals only, Peidi, it will make it easier”. Had you suggested that to her?
BYWATERS: I had.
At the bottom of p.94: “Have you lost heart and given up hope? Tell me if you have darlint.’ Was that the result of the letter you had written?
BYWATERS: Yes.
And you had arrived in this country on September 23rd and she wires you to meet her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
I am going to put it you – At that date had there been any agreement that any act of violence should be done to her husband?
BYWATERS: No, nothing.
Either by her or by you?
BYWATERS: No, nothing at all.
I think I got it from you but I will ask you: In these letters that have been read was there anything in any of those letters which incited you to do any act of violence to Mr Thompson?
BYWATERS: Nothing whatever.
Had it any effect on your mind at all so far as Mr Thompson was concerned?
BYWATERS: No, I never considered them much.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It will be a convenient time to adjourn if you have done with the letters.
MR WHITELEY: Yes, my Lord
(Adjourned till tomorrow, Bailiffs being sworn to take charge of the Jury)
THIRD DAY
[FRIDAY 8th DECEMBER 1922]
The prisoner FREDERICK EDWARD FRANCIS BYWATERS: recalled.
EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Bywaters, your ship arrived at Gravesend on 23rd September 23rd?
BYWATERS: Yes.
You went to your mother’s that evening?
BYWATERS: That is so.
And there you have been residing ever since?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What day did you first meet Mrs Thompson on your return?
BYWATERS: On Monday.
That would be the 25th.
BYWATERS: The 25th.
On the 25th, 26th, 27th and 28th did you meet her?
BYWATERS: I did.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN Let me have the dates; the 25th ?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Yes, and the next three days, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I am taking it shortly. At what time did you used to meet her on those days
BYWATERS: About a quarter to six in the evening at Fenchurch Street station.
And when did you leave her on those days?
BYWATERS: About a quarter to seven.
Were those the only times that you were with her during those days?
BYWATERS: That is so.
On Friday what time did you leave your mother’s house?
BYWATERS: About 11 in the morning.
Friday the 29th, when did you meet Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: About midday, lunch time.
Did you take her to lunch?
BYWATERS: Yes.
She had to go back to her business after that?
BYWATERS: Yes.
As the witnesses for the prosecution have said, did you go to Fuller’s teashop between three and four that afternoon?
BYWATERS: Yes, I suppose it would be about that time.
There is no dispute about this. You got the letter which Miss Jacobs handed you?
BYWATERS: Oh, yes.
And you were in that teashop when Mrs Vellender came in?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What time did you leave Mrs Thompson that day?
BYWATERS: About quarter to seven.
Where was she going?
BYWATERS: She was going home to Ilford. I left her in Ilford.
You then went back to your home?
BYWATERS: I went to the Graydons’.
On Friday evening did you?
BYWATERS: No, not Friday – not Friday.
MR JUDSTICE SHEARMAN: You have not told us you went on Friday?
BYWATERS: Yes
MR CECIL WHITELEY: The mother’s evidence was that you were home fairly early in the evening?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you see Mrs Thompson on the Saturday morning?
BYWATERS: Yes, about 9 o’clock.
9 o’clock?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you make an arrangement with her?
BYWATERS: I took her for a walk.
Where?
BYWATERS: In Wanstead Park.
BYWATERS: About 1.
Midday?
BYWATERS: Yes, midday.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: In Wanstead Park?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Your mother says that you came home in the afternoon about tea time: is that right?
BYWATERS: That is quite right.
Were you home for the rest of Saturday and for the whole of Sunday until the Monday?
BYWATERS: That is correct.
On the Monday morning did Mrs Thompson telephone to you?
BYWATERS: She did.
Was that unusual?
BYWATERS: Oh, quite usual; whenever I was at home she would ring me up in the morning.
Did you meet her that day for lunch?
BYWATERS: I did.
She went back to her work, and did you go to Fuller’s teashop that afternoon?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Mrs Higgins and Marshall were both persons employed at Carlton and Prior’s?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Did Mrs Thompson come into the teashop?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What time did you leave her that night?
BYWATERS: About quarter to 7, the usual time.
She going down to Ilford?
BYWATERS: Yes.
After leaving her that Monday evening where did you go?
BYWATERS: I went to Mr Graydon’s, 231 Shakespeare Crescent, Manor Park.
You told us you were in the habit of visiting them when you were home for your leave. Was that the first time you went, as far as you can remember this time?
BYWATERS: No, the previous Monday I had called on Mr Graydon with a message from his son in Australia.
Were you on very friendly terms with that family?
BYWATERS: Yes.
How long were you at the Graydons’ that evening?
BYWATERS: On that Monday up to about 10.30 I suppose.
Bywaters, was anything said at that time about tobacco?
BYWATERS: Yes, I asked Mr Graydon if he would get me some tobacco. He said he would get it for me.
I want to put it to you at this stage. Up to that time had there been any agreement between you and Mrs Thompson with reference to her husband in any way?
BYWATERS: Only the usual agreement of trying to get a separation or divorce.
Had the position been changed in any way from what it had been on your previous leave?
BYWATERS: Oh, no nothing at all; if anything trying to get more resigned to it.
You or she?
BYWATERS: We both were.
Now come to Tuesday October 3rd. Bywaters, had you a knife in your possession?
BYWATERS: I had.
How long had you had that knife.
BYWATERS: I bought the knife in November of 1921.
Had the knife a sheath?
BYWATERS: It had.
A leather sheath?
BYWATERS: A leathern one.
Did you take it with you when you went abroad?
BYWATERS: Yes.
On your voyages abroad you visited many ports such as Port Said, Marseilles, and so forth?
BYWATERS: Oh yes, practically every port.
In what pocket did you carry that knife?
BYWATERS: In my inside overcoat pocket – right overcoat pocket in this side, in there (indicating).
Overcoat?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Were you wearing an overcoat during this October when you were home?
BYWATERS: Yes.
And where was the knife during these first three days in October and the end of September?
BYWATERS: In my pocket.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Dop you mean always in your pocket?
BYWATERS: Yes, my Lord.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Was the knife in your pocket on October 3rd?
BYWATERS: It was.
Did Mrs Thompson telephone as usual on that morning to you?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you meet her at lunch?
BYWATERS: I did.
Where did you take her to lunch?
BYWATERS: We went to the Queen Anne Restaurant, Cheapside.
She went back to her business, and did you go to Fuller’s shop that afternoon?
BYWATERS: I did.
Did Mrs Thompson join you later?
BYWATERS: Yes, at about ten past five; she came to the door and I got up and went outside with her.
Did you have a conversation with her before you left her; what time did you leave her?
BYWATERS: I left Mrs Thompson at about half past 5 at Aldersgate Street station. The conversation I had had with her was making arrangements for the following day. She asked me if I would be in town the following day as usual.
Was that the arrangement that was come to between you?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Was anything said about the theatre that night?
BYWATERS: Mrs Thompson said she was going to a theatre. She said “I wish I was going with you”.
Did she say with whom she was going?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Just tell us what she told you.
BYWATERS: She told me she was going with Percy and her uncle and aunt from Stamford Hill, and Miss Avis Graydon was supposed to go.
Where did you part with her?
BYWATERS: At Aldersgate Street station.
Where did you go next?
BYWATERS: I went to Manor Park, Mr Graydon’s house.
Do you remember at all about the time you got there?
BYWATERS: It would be about half half-past six I suppose – 6 to half past.
Had you any special reason for going there that night, having been there the previous night?
BYWATERS: Oh, yes, I went there in order to get some tobacco.
Was it a special brand of tobacco that he could get for you?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Now tell me, Bywaters, how long were you there that evening?
BYWATERS: Till about eleven o’clock.
Were you sitting in the same room all the time?
BYWATERS: Yes.
How many members of the Graydon family did you speak to in that room that evening?
BYWATERS: Four – Mr and Mrs Graydon, Newenham the son, and Avis the daughter.
Did they come in at different times?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Had you a pouch with you?
BYWATERS: I had.
Where had you got that pouch from?
BYWATERS: Mrs Thompson.
It was a present, BYWATERS: Yes.
When did she give it to you?
BYWATERS: She gave it to me as a present on the Monday.
Did any of the members of the Graydon family notice it.
BYWATERS: Yes, both Mrs and Miss Graydon noticed it.
Was there any conversation about Mrs Thompson then?
BYWATERS: Yes, not a direct conversation but alluding to Mrs Thompson.
In what way; just tell us?
BYWATERS: Mrs Graydon said to me: “You have got a new pouch, Freddy; was it a present”? I said, “Yes”. She said, “From a girl, I expect? ”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: From a what?
BYWATERS: A girl; so I said “Yes”. She said “I expect the same girl gave you that as gave you the watch”.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Had you had a present of a watch?
BYWATERS: Yes.
From whom?
BYWATERS: From Mrs Thompson.
When?
BYWATERS: Two voyages previously.
How did the conversation go on?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are going too fast.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I beg your Lordship’s pardon. (To the witness): You were telling us Mrs Graydon was referring to the watch?
BYWATERS: So I said, “Yes, the same girl gave it me”; and she said, “I can guess who that is”. I said ‘I don’t think you can”. She said “I know who it is but I am not going to say”.
That was Mrs Thompson’s mother?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Was there any further conversation about her in that way?
BYWATERS: Yes, she said “Never mind, we won’t argue about it, she is one of the best”.
BYWATERS: I said “There is none better”.
Bywaters, I know it is difficult, but I want you to tell us in your own way what your feelings were towards Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: After that conversation which happened just before I left I was naturally thinking of Mrs Thompson, I was thinking how unhappy she was, and I wished I could help her in some manner. That was the trend of my thought all the way to East Ham station. When I arrived at East Ham station I thought “I don’t want to go home; I feel too miserable”.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You arrived at East Ham station?
BYWATERS: Yes, my Lord, “I went to see Mrs Thompson; I want to see if I can help her”. I turned round from East Ham station and walked in the direction of Ilford.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Why to Ilford?
BYWATERS: I knew Mr and Mrs Thompson would be together and I thought perhaps if I was to see them I might be able to make things a bit better.
You have told us that on two previous occasions, and on only two, had you spoken to Mr Thompson about this?
BYWATERS: Yes.
In August and September of the previous year?
BYWATERS: That is right.
What was your object in going to Ilford?
BYWATERS: I went to see Thompson to come to an amicable understanding for a separation or divorce.
Until that moment, had you had any intention of going to Ilford at all that night?
BYWATERS: Oh, no; it kind of came across me all of a sudden.
You walked there did you to Belgrave Road?
BYWATERS: Yes.
I want you to tell my Lord and the Jury exactly what was done, and what was said, in its proper order. Take it your own way, and take it quite slowly?
BYWATERS: I arrived at Ilford station; I crossed over the railway bridge turning down York Road into Belgrave Road. When I got into Belgrave Road I walked for some time, and some distance ahead I saw Mr and Mrs Thompson.
In which direction were they walking?
BYWATERS: They were walking along Belgrave Road towards Kensington Gardens.
In front of you.
Yes, in front of me.
Their backs turned to you?
BYWATERS: Yes.
In what position were they? Was Mrs Thompson inside or outside?
BYWATERS: Mrs Thompson was on the inside. This is Belgrave Road; the wall of houses this side; road this side: Mrs Thompson was here, Thompson here (describing).
BYWATERS: And you were where?
BYWATERS: I was behind them. I overtook them and pushed Mrs Thompson like that (describing).
With your right hand?
BYWATERS: With my right hand.
Yes?
BYWATERS: With my left hand, I held Thompson and caught him by the back of his coat and pushed him along the street, swinging him round.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I did not catch the last?
BYWATERS: Swinging him round like that my Lord (describing).
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I did not catch the word “swinging” — swinging him round.
MR WHITELEY: After you swung him round —
BYWATERS: I said to him “Why don’t you get a divorce or separation, you cad”.
Where were your hands when you said that?
BYWATERS: By the side of me like tis (describing).
You had let go of him?
BYWATERS: Oh yes, yes. He said “I know that is what you want, but I am not going to give it you; it would make it too pleasant for both of you”.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “I know that is what you want”?
BYWATERS: Yes, my Lord.
MR WHITELEY: Yes?
BYWATERS: I said “You take a delight in making Edie’s life a hell” —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I did not catch it — “You take a” what?
BYWATERS: “A delight”.
MR WHITELEY: Yes?
BYWATERS: He said “I’ve got her, I’ll keep her, and I’ll shoot you”, as he said that he punched me in the chest with his left hand, his left fist like that (describing).
Yes.
BYWATERS: I said “Oh, will you” and drew a knife and put it in his arm.
Did he do anything before you took the knife out?
BYWATERS: Yes, he went like that —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “Took a knife and put it in his arm — what”
BYWATERS: In his arm.
MR WHITELEY: I asked you before you took your knife out, besides his saying anything did he do anything?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What was it?
BYWATERS: He punched me with his left hand and said “I’ll shoot you,” going at the same time like that, with his right hand (describing).
He put his right hand there?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Putting his right hand where?
BYWATERS: There, my Lord (indicating)
MR WHITELEY: Why did you draw your knife?
BYWATERS: Because I thought I was going to be killed.
You told is that you put your knife into his arm; just show where?
BYWATERS: Just there.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have got the word “indicating”.
MR WHITELEY: In his arm, Bywaters, what happened after that?
BYWATERS: There was a struggle, all the time struggling, I thought he was going to kill me; I thought he was going to shoot me if he had an opportunity, and I tried to stop him.
We know what wounds he was suffering from. Have you any recollection at all as to how the wounds at the back of the neck occurred?
BYWATERS: I have not any exact recollection but all I can say is I had the knife in my left hand, and they got there somehow.
Bywaters, during all this time after you had brushed Mrs Thompson away, did you see her again?
BYWATERS: I did not; she may have been 10 miles away for all I saw of her.
Yes?
BYWATERS: And after the struggle I never used the knife.
What happened then?
BYWATERS: Well, I suppose I ran away. I do not remember it definitely but that is what happened.
At that time did you realize that he was dead?
BYWATERS: No, he was standing.
When you left him he was standing up?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Your made your way home, walking?
BYWATERS: Walking and riding.
The next day we know your mother said you did some shopping with her and came to London with her.
BYWATERS: That is so, yes. I went to a hosier’s and chemist’s.
Where did you go that afternoon?
BYWATERS: That afternoon I went into the City.
Yes, and after that?
BYWATERS: While I was in the City I went to Leadenhall Market.
No, after that?
BYWATERS: After that I went to East Ham, Manor Park.
To visit whom?
BYWATERS: Mr Graydon and Miss Graydon.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I did not hear what you said. The next day you went to the City to Leadenhall Market, and Mr Graydon?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Yes, and Miss Graydon?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Why Miss Graydon?
BYWATERS: There was an understanding that Miss Graydon should come out with me that night.
That is Avis?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You say “And Miss Graydon”, you mean the same house?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR WHITELEY: When had the arrangement been made that you should take Avis out?
BYWATERS: On Tuesday.
The previous evening?
BYWATERS: Yes.
With Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: No, not with Mrs Thompson.
At the Graydons’ house was it?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What station do you go from to go down to Manor Park?
BYWATERS: Mark Lane.
Did you buy a paper there?
BYWATERS: I bought a paper at Mark Lane station.
Did you buy the Evening News?
BYWATERS: Yes.
And read it, and find an account of what had happened?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Was that the first knowledge you had that Mr Thompson was dead?
BYWATERS: It was. I could hardly believe it then.
We know what Mr Graydon said, he gave his evidence as to what happened when he arrived there. We need not go into that again; that is true, what he said?
BYWATERS: Yes.
The police officers came and asked you to go to Ilford police station, and you went?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Were you there the whole of that evening? Where were you in the Station?
BYWATERS: In the C.I.D. office up till about midnight, I suppose.
I do not want to go into the various conversations.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have not got it quite clear what station it was at Ilford?
BYWATERS: Ilford Police Station, my Lord.
CECIL WHITELEY: How many police officers in that station did you see that evening?
BYWATERS: I saw Superintendent Wensley, and Inspector Hall and a typist.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Wensley, Hall and what is the other one?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: A typist, my Lord. (To the witness) In whose presence did you sign Exhibit 5, which is the first statement you made?
BYWATERS: Superintendent Wensley’s.
He was there?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Anybody else?
BYWATERS: Inspector Hall and the typist.
I want you to tell us, did you dictate yourself that statement?
BYWATERS: No, I did not; I was asked to oblige Superintendent Wensley.
At any rate, whether it was done to oblige him or nor, was it done in the form of questions and answers?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Bywaters, you say nothing in that statement as to the meeting with Mrs Thompson by the wall?
BYWATERS: No.
That is right, is not it?
BYWATERS: That is correct.
Why did not you?
BYWATERS: I did not know what happened really. I knew Mrs Thompson was in custody and I wanted to help her.
You knew she was in custody and wanted to help her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
You are kept there all night and the following evening, Thursday, October 5th, the statement was signed by you, Exhibit 6?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Before signing that statement, had you seen anybody?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Who?
BYWATERS: I was taken to Mrs Thompson’s.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Taken to Mrs Thompson’s.
BYWATERS: Yes, my Lord.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Where were you?
BYWATERS: I was in the library and I was taken from the library to the C.I.D. Office.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He says “taken” to her; does he mean taken past her or what?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Taken past her?
BYWATERS: No, in her presence.
Where was it?
BYWATERS: In the C.I.D. office.
We know what she said when she saw you. It was after that you made this statement, Exhibit 6?
BYWATERS: Yes.
I ought to have asked you, do you know what happened to the sheath of your knife?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: We have not got it that the statement she made was in his presence.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: That was the evidence.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: No, she saw him through the window and then she made a statement, but not in his presence.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Did you hear it?
BYWATERS: No, I saw it.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are assuming he heard what she said; there is no such evidence at present; it may be so.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Did you hear what she said?
BYWATERS: No, I saw her statement.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You mean her written statement?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: You mean Exhibit 4?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is no evidence at present her heard her exclamation.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: I was asking you, Bywaters, can you remember what happened to the sheath?
BYWATERS: I have no idea.
We know that the knife was found five days afterwards?
BYWATERS: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Bywaters, from February, 1921, to the summer of 1921, I think June you were I was in the “Orvieto”?
BYWATERS: Yes.
And from June, as we have heard, till September, you were not in a ship; you were not employed or you were on leave?
BYWATERS: I was at home, yes.
When you came back in June, 1921, you were then 18 years of age?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Had your acquaintance with Mrs Thompson before that been simply as a friend of her brother’s?
BYWATERS: I was a friend of Mrs Thompson as well.
A friend of the family without any particular affection for her?
BYWATERS: Oh no; that is so; always very good friends Mrs Thompson and I were.
Was it on the holiday which you spent with her and her husband at Shanklin when you first fell in love with her?
BYWATERS: No.
Did she declare any particular affection for you?
BYWATERS: She did not.
Nor you for her?
BYWATERS: No.
Are you sure of that?
BYWATERS: I am positive.
Did you and her husband remain perfectly good friends during that holiday?
BYWATERS: Oh yes; yes.
When do you say you first felt or declared your affection for her?
BYWATERS: I first told her just before I went away in September 1921.
Was that, as we know, after you left her husband’s house?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Do you suggest that that was the first time at which you and she had declared yourselves to each other ?
BYWATERS: Yes, as mutual affection.
As being in love with each other?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did it go as far as that at that time?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Havre you the bundle of correspondence before you that you had yesterday?
BYWATERS: I should like it, please, if you are going to deal with those matters (Handed).
Will you turn to page 77 in the bundle Exhibit 25, the 20th June. Do you see the date at the top “20th June 1922”; the letter written to you in the “Morea”, to reach you at Sydney. Do you see that, Bywaters?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Now would you look at the fourth paragraph?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What page is it in the new paging?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL My Lord, the gentlemen of the jury will have to tell you.
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: 77 in the blue pencil, my Lord; in the middle of the page at the bottom 111.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL Now do you see the fourth paragraph of this letter written on the 20thJune 1922? Was the 20th June 1921 spent with the Thompsons at Shanklin?
BYWATERS: No.
Are you sure of that? I do not know when the holiday did begin or when it ended?
BYWATERS: No, we were not at Shanklin.
Were you back at Kensington Gardens with them on the 20th June?.
BYWATERS: Yes.
Will you look at the fourth paragraph: “It’s Friday now, darlint nearly time to go, I am wondering if you remember what your answer was to me in reply to my ‘What’s the matter’ tonight of last year. I remember quite well – ‘you know what’s the matter, I love you’ — but you didn’t then darlint, because you do now and it’s different now, isn’t it? From then onwards everything has gone wrong with our lives – I dont mean to say it was right before – at least mine wasnt right – but I was quite indifferent to it being either right or wrong and you darlint – you hadn’t any of the troubles – or the worries you have now – you were quite free in mind and body”. Did you read that, bywaters?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Was that a true statement or an untrue statement, that a year ago in June, 1921, you and she had declared your love for each other?
BYWATERS: That is not right.
That is untrue?
BYWATERS: That is untrue.
Can you suggest how this woman, who was in love with you, had invented an imaginary beginning for this amazing passion?
BYWATERS: I do not quite understand you.
Can you suggest how Mrs Thompson came to invent and imaginary beginning or an imaginary incident in June 1921?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: To come down to the simpler question – did you on that day say “I love you” ?
BYWATERS: No, my Lord.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Would you look at page 108, Exhibit 49, August 11th 1921? Have you got that?
BYWATERS: Yes.
“Darlingest, will you please take these letters back now? I have nowhere to keep them, except a small cash box I have just bought and I want that for my own letters only and I feel scared to death in case anybody else should read them. All the wishes I can possibly send for the very best of luck today, from Peidi”.
That letter was, in fact, written a few days after you had left their house at Kensington Gardens?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Does that satisfy you that your evidence is wrong as to the date you told her you loved her?
BYWATERS: No.
Very well. Then on the 20th August on page 12, Exhibit 12, new page 2, “Come and see me Monday lunch time, please, darlint; he suspects, Edith”. Is that right: did you receive that letter?
BYWATERS: Is it a letter – yes.
Do you remember when you met her?
BYWATERS: I suppose I went on the Monday; I do not know.
You do not remember?
BYWATERS: No.
Do you remember then as to whether you and Mrs Thompson had conversations as to suspicions of her husband about you?
BYWATERS: He was naturally jealous of Mrs Thompson’s friends.
Did you and Mrs Thompson have conversations about the time, or just after you left her husband’s house as to her husband being suspicious of you?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you and Mrs Thompson at that time desire that she should be separated from her husband?
BYWATERS: Oh yes.
Was she anxious for it?
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Mr Solicitor, to clear this up, in his evidence-in-chief he said “On August 1st at the meeting there was this trouble; and we all three discussed a separation”.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes. (To the Witness). My Lord reminds me that early in August you and Mr and Mrs Thompson discussed a separation?
BYWATERS: They discussed it; I listened.
Were you involved in that conversation as the lover of Mrs Thompson ?
BYWATERS: No.
I may take it you did not declare yourself at any time in the conversation?
BYWATERS: Oh no.
Were you anxious to declare yourself or were you anxious to prevent the husband from being suspicious?
BYWATERS: I had not those feelings then.
You had not the feelings then?
BYWATERS: No.
Then I may take it that at that time you had no intention of taking Mrs Thompson away with you or no thought of it?
BYWATERS: I had thought of helping Mrs Thompson; I should like to help her to be more happy.
Had you any thought at that time of going away with her, taking her to live with you?
BYWATERS: No.
Had you thought of that before you departed on your voyage in September, 1921?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Had you suggested that to her?
BYWATERS: (After a pause) Not exactly that. I had suggested she should get a divorce or separation and, failing that, we should go away together.
Was that before September, 1921, before you left in your ship?
BYWATERS: That was just a few days before I left.
Did you see Mr Thompson again after the interview at which his wife and he discussed separation?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When was that; before you left?
BYWATERS: I saw him while I was in the house and I saw him again when I came home in November.
Up till that time in November, so far as you know, had the husband any suspicions of you?
BYWATERS: No.
Were you and he perfectly good friends?
BYWATERS: No; I cannot say that we were good friends.
Were you on friendly terms?
BYWATERS: We were acquaintances.
Then, when you came back in November, did you meet again?
BYWATERS: I did.
Did you then meet as friends and part as friends?
BYWATERS: As acquaintances.
Did you part as friends after you saw him?
BYWATERS: We shook hands when we went; we were not bosom chums.
Did you mention the question again to him of a separation?
BYWATERS: Yes.
On that occasion in November?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Was he angry about it?
BYWATERS: No, I cannot say he was.
Was he pleased about it?
BYWATERS: Well, he was not exactly pleased.
Did he turn you out of the house?
BYWATERS: Oh no.
Or did he receive you?
BYWATERS: Oh, he received me.
And discussed it in an amicable way?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you then tell him that you were in love with his wife?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you suggest any grounds on which she was to obtain a divorce?
BYWATERS: No.
Or upon which he was to obtain a divorce?
BYWATERS:, No.
Was divorce mentioned?
BYWATERS: Divorce or separation [was] mentioned.
Were you not at this time attempting to keep back from him all suspicion as to your relations with Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: No, I was not attempting to keep it back.
Did you ever tell him up to that time?
BYWATERS: No.
Had you and Mrs Thompson at that time spoken about suicide?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When was that proposal was abandoned?
BYWATERS: (After a pause) About
Do you remember when that proposal was abandoned?
BYWATERS: Abandoned?
Yes: was it abandoned?
BYWATERS: Yes, the pact of suicide was abandoned.
It is referred to in Exhibit 62, page 132, new page 3, the letter of 18th November, 1921 “All I could think about last night was that compact we made; shall we have to carry it through”? Was that pact abandoned after that letter; did you think of it again?
BYWATERS: I never really considered it seriously.
May we take it from that time forward there was no more thought of the suicide pact?
BYWATERS: Oh, there was; it was mentioned.
But not really entertained by you?
BYWATERS: No.
Do you say from that time forward the only idea in your mind or hers was divorce or separation?
BYWATERS: Or suicide on her part.
But the suicide, I put to you after that letter was not seriously entertained?
BYWATERS: Not by me, but by her it was.
Except for the suicide on her part you say that you or she only contemplated separation or divorce?
BYWATERS: That is true, or me to take her away.
Was the removal of her husband ever mentioned by her to you?
BYWATERS: No.
Never?
BYWATERS: Never .
Did it ever occur to you that that was a way in which you and she might come together?
BYWATERS: No.
Did her letters suggest it to you?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you tell your learned Counsel that you read her letters as melodrama ?
BYWATERS: Some.
What was it you understood as melodrama?
BYWATERS: She had a vivid way of describing herself; she would read a book and imagine herself as the character in the book.
Do you mean that you read her references to poison as melodrama?
BYWATERS: Some as melodrama; some as general knowledge.
General knowledge?
BYWATERS: Yes.
I do not understand that. What did you understand when she mentioned a particular poison?
BYWATERS: To what are you referring?
Are you aware, or do you remember that she mentioned several times a poison in her letters?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did that suggest to you a dose of poison might kill her husband?
BYWATERS: No.
It did not occur to you?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you not read those letters as meaning that the idea was in her mind?
BYWATERS: No.
Did she ever make an actual proposal to you that you and she might go off together?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When did she first make it – about when?
BYWATERS: I suppose it was about the November when I came home.
November?
BYWATERS: Yes, I suppose it would be about that time.
Did you agree to the proposal, or did you reject it?
BYWATERS: I said “Wait and see what happens.”
What were you going to wait for?
BYWATERS: To see if she could get a separation or divorce.
And how long were you going to wait?
BYWATERS: A period of five years.
Did you ever mean to do anything to make a divorce possible?
BYWATERS: No.
You had no intention of taking any action?
BYWATERS: No.
Will you turn to the letter of 1st April, a letter that was written to you at Bombay. Ex. 17, p.48 of the new paging. It is a very long letter. Will you look at the page beginning “Do not keep this piece”. Have you got that; it is the firth or sixth page of the letter.
BYWATERS: What page is it?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The new paging is 48.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Do you see this piece at the top?
BYWATERS: No, it is on page 48 here.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: Page 35 of the old one?
BYWATERS: Yes
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: “I thought a lot about what you said of Dan?”
BYWATERS: I had told Mrs Thompson about a friend of mine named “Dan”.
That is all you had told her?
BYWATERS: I told her of some of his business that he had told me.
Had you told him anything about yourself and Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: No
Then will you follow while I read: “Darlint, don’t trust him. I do not mean don’t tell him anything because I know you never would. What I mean is don’t let him be suspicious of you regarding that because if we were successful in the action – darlint circumstances may afterwards make us want many friends – or helpers and we must have no enemies – or even people that know a little too much. Remember the saying ‘A little knowledge is a dangerous thing’”. What was “the action” that she there refers to?
BYWATERS: Suicide as far as I remember.
But Bywaters, read it again. Don’t let me hurry you.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Read the whole of the passage.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Shall I read it slowly to you?
BYWATERS: I can read it. (The witness perused the letter)
Have you read it?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Now what does that mean: “What I mean is don’t let him be suspicious of you regarding that because if we were successful in the action”. What does the action” mean?
BYWATERS: Mrs Thompson had proposed to me that she did not want to make my life as unhappy as hers; she said she would sooner kill herself.
Do you suggest that the action means suicide?
BYWATERS: I do.
“Because if we were successful in the action darlint afterwards make us want many friends or helpers and we must have no enemies”. Do you really suggest the “action” means suicide?
BYWATERS: As far as I know yes, it means suicide.
Are you quite clear it does not mean crime?
BYWATERS: I am positive of that.
I am coming back to that letter, but let me take you to page 109 in your bundle, exhibit 50, page 39 in the new bundle. This is written before the 31st March, and you had been home, If I may remind you – tell me if I am wrong – for about a fortnight at the end of January and again for a few days at the end of March?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Now there is this letter about the 31st March at the bottom of the page. You were just going away. “This time really will be the last time you will go away – like things are won’t it? We said it before darlint I know and we failed – but there will be no failure this next time darlint; there must not be”. Had there been a failure?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What had you tried that had failed?
BYWATERS: Separation or divorce.
Does it occur to you what was the best way to get a divorce if that was all you wanted?
BYWATERS: Yes, I know the best way of getting a divorce.
What was the best way of getting a divorce for Mrs Thompson from her husband?
BYWATERS: To provide Mr Thompson with the information he needed.
Why did you not try?
BYWATERS: Because he would not accept.
Did you provide him with the information?
BYWATERS: She had.
Had she provided him with the information to enable him to get a divorce?
BYWATERS: She said she would provide him with the information to get a divorce.
Had she tried to give him the information to get a divorce?
BYWATERS: She said she would do it.
My question was, had she tried to get a divorce from her husband?
BYWATERS: She had suggested to him she wanted a divorce, and she would provide him with the information he required if he would come to terms.
I suggest to you “failure” there refers to the same thing as “action” in the other letter – that Mrs Thompson had tried to poison her husband and had failed?
BYWATERS: And I say that that is not true.
What you say is that it refers to information or a statement she had thought of making to her husband to make him divorce her?
BYWATERS: Yes, or separation.
Were you and she really anxious that he should know that you and Mrs Thompson were lovers?
BYWATERS: He did know.
From when did he know? From what time did he know?
BYWATERS: I do not know he exactly knew we were lovers. He knew we were fond of each other.
Did not you do your best to keep it from him from start to finish?
BYWATERS: Oh, no.
Will you turn to page 13, exhibit 13, of the 3rd January, page 16 in the new bundle?
Yes.
Do you see in the second paragraph “Immediately I have received a second letter I have destroyed the first, and when I got the third I destroyed the second and so on. Now the only one I have is the “Dear Edie”, written to 41, which I am going to keep. It may be useful; who knows”? Was that the letter of the 1st December at page 17, in your bundle exhibit 14, that is the letter beginning “Dear Edie” and signed “Yours very sincerely, Freddy”?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Written in December 12921. Was that the customary way in which you wrote to Mrs Thompson at that time?
BYWATERS: No.
Was that letter written in that form in order to disarm suspicion?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you understand from the passage I had just read from the letter of the 3rd January that she was going to use that letter to disarm suspicion?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you understand what she meant when she said “It may be useful, who knows”?
BYWATERS: I do not know.
Would the letter be any use to get a divorce or separation?
BYWATERS: I think that she is referring to the latter.
I take it you would agree with me the letter would not be useful for that purpose?
BYWATERS: I do not agree with you; I never said that.
You do not follow me. You agree with me that that letter which says “Dear Edie” and says “Yours very sincerely” would be of no use to enable either her or you to get a divorce?
BYWATERS: That letter was not meant to be a means of getting a divorce.
What was it meant for?
BYWATERS: It was a Christmas greeting.
Why did you depart from your customary mode of addressing her?
BYWATERS: What was my customary mode?
You told me I thought that your letter was in the usual way of addressing her?
BYWATERS: The usual way of writing?
Your usual way of writing, was it?
BYWATERS: Yes.
“Yours very sincerely, Freddy” and “Dear Edie”. Do you remember a telegram and letter of August 1921?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you understand what she meant when she said “This letter may be useful; I will keep it?”
BYWATERS: She may have kept this to show to Avis, her sister.
To show to Avis?
BYWATERS: Yes, that was one of the reasons that I wrote it.
Then you did write it to blind somebody?
BYWATERS: Oh, yes.
Did the subject of poisons ever occur in your conversations with her when you were at home?
BYWATERS: Sometimes.
In what connection?
BYWATERS: General conversation; knowledge.
Would you tell me a little more; who mentioned poisons?
BYWATERS: Well, if she had been reading anything and poison was mentioned or any matter that she would not understand, she would ask me what it meant.
Did you know anything about poison?
BYWATERS: I did not know very much.
Did she appear to be interested in poison?
BYWATERS: No, not particularly.
Did it ever strike you it occupied a prominent place in her mind?
BYWATERS: No more than other things.
Did you take an interest in poison?
BYWATERS: I was fond of chemistry when I was at school.
Did you take an interest in poison? Chemistry and poison are two different things?
BYWATERS: Poisons deal with chemistry. Poisons come in chemistry.
Yes; did you take any interest in poisons as poisons?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you keep up your interest which you say you had in chemistry?
BYWATERS: No, I did not. She knew of that interest, though; her brother used to join me.
Do you suggest then that the mention of poison in your conversation and in your letters was due to the fact that she knew you were interested in chemistry; is that your explanation?
BYWATERS: No, my explanation is this: If she had been reading something and it occurred to her, if I had been in her presence she would have asked me what it was. If I was not there, she put it in writing.
Do you remember the document which you wrote out containing the Troy weights, Exhibit 27 (Handed); is that your handwriting?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When did you write it?
BYWATERS: I could not say.
Why did you keep it?
BYWATERS: Because it is useful in general knowledge.
Had that any connection with the request she made to you to make experiments with pills?
BYWATERS: Oh no.
Will you turn back to page 35 of your correspondence, the letter of April 1st, “Do not keep this piece”. Will you look at the third paragraph “He was telling his mother etc. the circumstances of my ‘Sunday morning escapade’ and he puts great stress on the fact of the ‘tea tasting bitter as if something had been put in it ’ he says. Now I think whatever else I try it in again will still taste bitter, he will recognise it and be more suspicious still, and if the quantity is still not successful, it will injure any chance I may have of trying when you come home. Do you understand?” What did you understand about that passage?
BYWATERS: That she had taken the quinine and it tasted bitter.
Look at it again, “He puts great stress on the fact of the tea tasting bitter as if something had been put in it”, he says. To whom did it taste bitter?
BYWATERS: Mrs Thompson.
Do you suggest that, Bywaters?
BYWATERS: I do.
Do you suggest that is how you understood the letter when you received it?
BYWATERS: I do.
“Now I think whatever else I try it in again will still taste bitter, he will recognise it and be more suspicious still”. Do you still adhere to what you say, that she is speaking of her taste?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What did you understand him to be suspicious of?
BYWATERS: That she was attempting to commit suicide.
What, and she tells him? Did you understand her to mean that she would tell him that her tea tasted bitter and she was about to commit suicide?
BYWATERS: Possibly she would.
Bywaters, is that your understanding of that passage?
BYWATERS: That is.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You want to clear up something about this.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is another passage which refers to quinine. There is a passage at page 44 of your paging, Exhibit 19; 1st May, have yout got it.
BYWATERS: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Page 57?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, halfway down the letter. “I don’t think we’re failures in other things and we mustn’t be in this”. Did you understand what that referred to?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What?
BYWATERS: Well, if you read further, “We must not give up as we said.”
What was that?
BYWATERS: Give up trying for a separation or divorce.
“We must learn to be patient. We must have each other, darlint. It is meant to be, I know, I feel it is because I love you such a lot, such a love was not meant to be in vain. It will come right I know one day, if not by our efforts some other way. We will wait eh, darlint, and you will try and not worry about anybody or anything. You said it was enough for an elephant”. Do you remember saying that?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you say that in writing or in speech?
BYWATERS: In speech.
Are you clear about that; did you say it in a letter or a conversation when you were at home? If you do not remember, tell me.
BYWATERS: I really do not remember whether it was in a conversation or a letter.
And what was it you said was enough for an elephant?
BYWATERS: The quinine I had given Mrs Thompson.
What was enough for an elephant: the whole quantity you gave her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
For what had you given her quinine?
BYWATERS: She had been wanting me to get her something with which to commit suicide as she did not want to make my life as unhappy as hers. To satisfy her craving I said I would get her something and I gave her quinine.
It is your suggestion that in May, 1922, you were lending your assistance to her desire to commit suicide?
BYWATERS: Her suggestion.
Her suggestion and you were assisting her; is that what you say?
BYWATERS: Where is this, please?
Never mind the letter. This letter is May, 1922: never mind that. You say you gave her this quinine because she wanted something with which to commit suicide. Is that right?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Did you give her quinine with that object?
BYWATERS: I did.
Were you therefore willing to help her to commit suicide?
BYWATERS: No, I knew she could not hurt herself with quinine.
You were playing with her ideas?
BYWATERS: I was pulling her leg.
“You said it was enough for an elephant. Perhaps it was. But you don’t allow for the taste making only a small quantity to be taken. It sounded like a reproach. Was it meant to be?” That is your explanation that you were playing a joke upon her?
BYWATERS: That is so.
She goes on, “Darlint, I tried hard, you won’t know how hard, because you weren’t there to see and I can’t tell you all but I did, I do want you to believe I did for both of us”. Now look at the next passage, “ I was buoyed up with the hope of the light bulb and I used a lot.” Did you understand that as referring to a dose she herself took of broken glass?
BYWATERS: Possibly, yes. She was trying to persuade me to give her something with which to commit suicide and I refrained; I gave her this quinine.
I am now asking about another passage, Bywaters?
BYWATERS: Yes, that is what I am referring to.
Well, go on?
BYWATERS: I gave her quinine so that she would not take anything herself.
Then in the next passage I called your attention to she refers to another specific “I was buoyed up with the hope of the light bulb and I used a lot, big pieces too”. Did you understand that to mean that she had taken glass?
BYWATERS: I understood that to be a lie from her to me.
You understood that even if it was a lie, that what it was a lie about was what she had taken herself?
BYWATERS: Oh, yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Look at it. Was she lying about what her husband had taken or what she had taken herself?
BYWATERS: I say she was lying about what she had taken herself.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Bywaters: I will ask you that question again in a moment when we have read the next paragraph. “I quite expected to be able to send that cable.” If she was lying to you about what she had taken, do you suggest that she would day immediately after that “I quite expected to be able to send that cable”/
BYWATERS: Where is that?
The next sentence.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have got the words “Send you”; I do not know whether it makes much difference but still one has to be exact.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If your Lordship pleases: Exhibit 19 is “send that cable”. Bywaters, you have read that sentence, do you suggest that in her story, her lie she is speaking to you, that after she had taken the dose that would kill her she was expecting to send you that cable?
BYWATERS: No, I do not suggest that.
What do you suggest?
BYWATERS: That she would have sent me a cable if she had been successful in getting a divorce or an agreement of separation.
Immediately after she had told you she had been taking glass to kill herself she refers to a cable that she is going to send you as to the chance of a divorce?
By MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Had you arranged with her if anything happened she should cable you?
BYWATERS: Yes, if she was successful in getting an agreement for separation.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Now, Bywaters, the next sentence: ‘I quite expected to be able to send that cable but no, nothing has happened very much” – that is the glass?
BYWATERS: No.
What was it?
BYWATERS: The approach of Thompson to get this separation.
“Now your letter tells me about the bitter taste again. Oh, darlint, I do feel so down and unhappy. Would not the stuff make small pills coated together with soap and dipped in liquorice powder, like Beechams – try while you are away”. Is that why you were interested in Troy weights?
BYWATERS: No.
“Our boy has had to have his thumb operated upon because he had a piece of glass in it, that is what made me try that method again, but I suppose, as you say, he is not normal” – who is “he”. To whom did you understand “he” to refer? (After a pause) Read the next sentence if you are in doubt. Now can you tell me? “I know I feel I shall never get him to take a sufficient quantity of anything bitter”. Have you any doubt that you understood that to mean the husband?
BYWATERS: I did not understand that.
To whom did you understand it referred?
BYWATERS: Perhaps she had made a mistake in the words.
And meant “me”?
BYWATERS: Yes.
“I know I feel I shall never get ‘myself ’ to take a sufficient quantity of anything bitter” – is that how you read it?
BYWATERS: That is right; she did not like the taste of quinine.
Was there any reason why she should be concerned as to leaving traces of what she was doing? Read the next sentence, “Darlint, two heads are better than one is such a true saying. You told me not to leave finger marks on the box, do you know I did not think of the box but I did think of the glass or cup whatever was used. I wish, I wish, oh I wish I could do something”. You understood that to mean at the time “I wish, I wish, oh, I wish I could kill myself”; is that it?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Will you turn to page 62, the “Bella Donna” letter of the 18th May, Exhibit 22, “It must be remembered that digitalin is a cumulative poison, and that the same dose harmless if taken once yet frequently repeated, becomes deadly. Darlingest boy, the above passage I have just come across in a book I am reading “Bella Donna” by Robert Hichens. Is it any use?” Did you answer her question?
BYWATERS: No, I did not answer it.
Did you attach any importance to the question?
BYWATERS: I thought it was another manner in which she was trying to get something with which to commit suicide.
You were devotedly attached to Mrs Thompson at this time?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did it excite no apprehension in your mind when she made these repeated proposals to you to commit suicide?
BYWATERS: I told her if she really wanted it I would get it for her; I would get her something to commit suicide.
Did you understand this was a proposal that digitalin should help her to commit suicide?
BYWATERS: Yes, I understood her to mean that would be more pleasant than quinine or the glass.
What was the object of having the cumulative poison if she was going to commit suicide?
BYWATERS: I did not see the object of having a cumulative poison but it was not unpleasant.
Did she expect you to help her to commit suicide, do you know?
BYWATERS: I do not know that she really did expect it but she often mentioned it.
The letter I have already referred you to, Exhibit 19, the long letter about the glass and tea tasting bitter – “Do experiment with the pills while you are away, please darlint. No, we two – two halves – have not come to the end of our tether, do not let us”. Do you still suggest that was suicide?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Then you remember the letter of the 4th July when you were on your way home written to Sydney, (page 84 new page 97). Is the first bit anything connected with anything that went before: “Have you studied bichloride of mercury”? Had you studied it?
BYWATERS: I had not.
Did you study it?
BYWATERS: I did not.
Did the question surprise you?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you refer to it in your correspondence?
BYWATERS: I did not.
Did you receive that letter when you were in Sydney – it was addressed to Sydney, and your ship was in Sydney I see on the 18th August. Do you remember the sentence?
BYWATERS: It is addressed to Fremantle, is not it?
I beg your pardon, it is addressed to Fremantle, and you were in Fremantle on the 18th August. That is Fremantle in Australia?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Did that enquiry surprise you?
BYWATERS: Did the enquiry surprise me?
Did you connect it again with suicide?
BYWATERS: No.
What did you connect it with?
BYWATERS: A general or common or garden question.
Did you still think at that time that she was pretending or contemplating to commit suicide?
BYWATERS: No, not apparently then.
Just follow; in May she was writing letters to you which you say you understood meant suicide?
BYWATERS: Yes.
In July she was writing to you about poison when you were in Freemantle in Australia?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you understand her to have abandoned suicide, or to be still thinking of it?
BYWATERS: I did not understand her to mean anything except that was a question. I expect she had read that somewhere, and did not know what it was, and asked me if I knew.
Did you ever rebuke her about the suicide talk?
BYWATERS: Well I tried to pacify her.
When you were in Australia did you tell her that you had made arrangements, or begun to make arrangements, for living in Australia with her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
That was on this trip?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Was it the arrangement which you began to make in Australia with a view to her running away from her husband?
BYWATERS: Yes, failing separation or divorce.
Failing separation or divorce? Will you look at Ex. 18, the letter of 24th April which apparently reached you at Aden on the 7th May. It is new page 71: “I used the light bulb three times, but the third time he found a piece so I have given it up until you come home”. What did you understand by that passage?
BYWATERS: She had been lying to me again.
She had been what?
BYWATERS: Lying to me – lying.
You understood that she was lying to you?
BYWATERS: Yes.
What did you understand the lie was?
BYWATERS: It was melodrama on her part trying to persuade me that she had taken broken glass.
She had taken?
BYWATERS: Yes.
“I used the ‘light bulb’ three times, but the third time he found a piece?”
BYWATERS: Yes.
You understood she meant her husband had detected her in an attempt to commit suicide?
BYWATERS: Yes.
“So I have given it up till you come home”?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Do you suggest that she was going to wait for your arrival home in order that you might co-operate with her in committing suicide?
BYWATERS: I might give her something more, some quinine.
That would be a strange idea to you, Bywaters, if that is right?
BYWATERS: Yes; I do not know her idea.
In any conversation did you ever speak about the risks you and she were running?
BYWATERS: Risk?
Yes, risk.
BYWATERS: Well, I do not know exactly in what way you mean.
If my question is not pain let me put it in another way. Did she tell you she running a risk?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Can you tell me what risk she was running?
BYWATERS: Whenever she mentioned to her husband separation or divorce there was always trouble.
What was the risk?
BYWATERS: Of her being unhappy – her life being made more unhappy.
Did she say: “I am prepared to run a risk if you are?”
BYWATERS: If I would let her; if I was agreeable.
The risk she was running —
BYWATERS: Of being knocked about.
Did she tell you in her letters that so far as she could make her husband believe it her husband thought she was a happy woman again, or something of that sort?
BYWATERS: No, she told me in her letters that was the only way she could obtain a little peace.
Now I come to September: were you anxious to break off or to alter the relations between you and Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: I thought, if I did not see her or did not correspond with her, her life would not seem so hard.
You thought if you did not write to her it would make her life easy?
BYWATERS: Yes.
You got the letter, Ex. 28, about September 1920. Will you turn to it at page 91, page 107 new paging. Begin reading at the bottom of page 92: “Darlingest boy. I don’t quite understand you about ‘pals’; You say ‘Can we be pals only, Peidi, it will make it easier’”. Had you said that?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Meaning no longer lovers?
BYWATERS: If we could stifle our feelings would it be easier for her.
“Do you mean for always, because if you do, no, no a thousand times. We cannot be ‘pals’ only for always darlint, it’s impossible physically and mentally. Last time we had a long talk. I said ‘Go away this time and forget all about me, forget you ever knew me, it will be easier, and better for you.’ Do you remember, and you refused, so now I’m refusing darlint. It must be still ‘the hope of all’ or ‘the finish of all.’
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You understand this letter as entreating you still to be her lover; is that so?
BYWATERS: No, it was not entreating, it was stating facts; that was all.
“If you still only mean for a certain time and you think it best, darlint, it shall be so. I don’t see how it can be myself, but it shall be as you say and wish, we won’t be our natural selves. I know we will be putting a curb on ourselves the whole time like an iron band that won’t expand. Please don’t let anything I have written deter you from any decision, darlint, I don’t want to do that. Truly I’d like to do what you think best. I don’t sleep much better now. The nights seem so long. I sleep for an hour and lie awake for two, and go asleep again for another hour right through the night. A doctor cannot do me any good my darlint, no good at all, even the most clever in the land, unless that doctor is you, and it cannot be so. I am not going to waste any more money on them. I want you for my doctor – my pal – my everything – just all, and the whole world cannot be changed”. Then at the end of the letter, p. 95: “Yes darlint you are jealous of him” – who was “him”? – the husband. What did you understand by that?
BYWATERS: Yes. I understood the husband, but I made the statement first. Mrs Thompson related to me he had taken out a lady to tea. I made the remark “All people’s tastes are not alike. Do you think by this that I am jealous of him?
Yes, darlint, you are jealous of him”?
BYWATERS: Yes.
“But I want you to be, he has the right by law to all that you have the right to by nature and love.
BYWATERS: “Yes, darlint, be jealous, so much that you will do something desperate”?
BYWATERS: But I was not jealous.
You were not jealous?
BYWATERS: No.
She was appealing to you to be jealous and do something desperate?
BYWATERS: No – “desperate” was to take her away; that is how I read it.
Why did you not take her away?
BYWATERS: Financial reasons.
Had you at that time ever thought of marrying her?
BYWATERS: No.
Had you ever asked her to go with you?
BYWATERS: There had been suggestions.
Did you ever ask her as a man to a woman to go away with you – to go away with you, and leave her husband?
BYWATERS: I do not know that I had asked; it was more of a mutual kind of arrangement.
You had never made a definite kind of arrangement?
BYWATERS: No, she would not take it; she would prefer a divorce or a separation.
On page 123, exhibit 55, there is an undated letter: “Darlint pal, please try and use, pour moi, and don’t buy a pouch; je vais pour vous one of these days”. Was that the note which was given to you when she gave you the pouch?
BYWATERS: No.
Was the pouch given to you on the 1st October?
BYWATERS: Yes, the pouch was the 1st October.
What this letter sent with or given to you with the pouch?
BYWATERS: No.
What does it refer to?
BYWATERS: It refers to a pipe.
Was it written after you had got home?
BYWATERS: I had it when I was in England, yes.
With it did the next document come, a cutting from the Daily Sketchof the 20th September?
BYWATERS: Yes.
At that time you were able to read English newspapers for yourself?
BYWATERS: No, not when this was written.
I thought you said it was given to you, or handed to you, after you reached England?
BYWATERS: I said I received it when I was in England. I received it in Plymouth.
You received it at Plymouth on your homeward journey?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When you reached England, or when you reached Tilbury, you received the telegram of the 25th September, exhibit 58, page 127: “Must catch 5.49 Fenchurch: reply if can manage”?
BYWATERS: Yes. I received that.
You met her from time to time without her husband’s knowledge?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you speak to her of the risk that you and she were running?
BYWATERS: That I was running?
Did you speak to her of the risk that you and she were running?
BYWATERS: Not any risk that I was running.
At the end of exhibit 60, the letter written on the 1st October, page 132: “Don’t forget what we talked in the tea rooms [sic]. I will still risk and try if you will. We have only have 3 ¾ years left darlint”. What did you understand the risk was?
What page is that?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: 131
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What did you understand the risk was that she was prepared to run?
BYWATERS: The risk of being knocked about when she was asking for separation or divorce.
What was the risk that you were to run, “I will still risk and try if you will”?
BYWATERS: If you will let me.
How was she going to run a risk of being knocked about, by telling her husband she was going with you?
BYWATERS: No, by asking for a divorce or separation.
Then you did in fact meet her and never went near her husband
BYWATERS: I kept away; I did not want further trouble.
You went to Aldersgate Street as you told us, and you waited for her and met her at Fuller’s?
BYWATERS: Yes.
You met her on the 3rd October, in the afternoon, at Fuller’s?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you have any conversation about her husband?
BYWATERS: No.
Did not you refer to him?
BYWATERS: Only that she was going to the theatre.
She did tell you that she was going to the theatre?
BYWATERS: Yes.
She told you which theatre?
BYWATERS: Yes.
After you left her I understand you went straight to the Graydons?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Were you carrying your knife when you went there?
BYWATERS: I was.
Did you carry that knife everywhere while in England?
BYWATERS: That had been in my pocket while I was in England.
That is not my question, Did you carry that knife everywhere you went while you were in England?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you ever use it for anything?
BYWATERS: Cutting string or cutting things handy.
Is that the purpose for which you carried it?
BYWATERS: I bought that, it may be handy at any time.
A knife of that size and character?
BYWATERS: Yes, handy at sea.
Handy at sea, but was it handy at home?
BYWATERS: Yes.
At any rate you took it with you to the Graydons. You knew before you went to the Graydons, as you told us, that they were going to the theatre?
BYWATERS: Yes.
When you made your statement on the 8th October, exhibit 5, did you say this: “Before leaving I remember Mrs Graydon’s daughter Avis saying that Percy (Mr Thompson) had ‘phoned her up, and I gathered from the observations she made that he was taking his wife to a theatre that night, and that there were other members of the family going”. You meant by that that you had heard for the first time that at the Graydons?
BYWATERS: I did not say that.
Did you mean that?
BYWATERS: No, I meant what I said.
Do you agree with me that the meaning of that paragraph is that you gathered [it] for the first time from conversation?
BYWATERS: No.
Did you just above that passage say: “I left my home yesterday morning about quarter to twelve. I was dressed in the same clothes that I am now wearing. I went up West and remained there till the evening. I was alone and never met anyone that I knew”. That was untrue?
BYWATERS: That was untrue. I objected to a lot of Superintendent Wensley’s questions.
You what?
BYWATERS: I objected to them. resented his questions.
You mean by “resented his questions” that you told a falsehood?
BYWATERS: Yes, I wanted to help Mrs Thompson.
Did you tell falsehoods in order to shield yourself in that statement?
BYWATERS: No.
It was your one idea to shield Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: That is so.
Why did not you stick to your first statement?
BYWATERS: Why didn’t I?
Yes.
BYWATERS: Because I chose to say —
What?
BYWATERS: Because I admitted it later.
I want to know why did you alter your statement?
BYWATERS: I was told Mrs Thompson would be released.
You were told Mrs Thompson would be released?
BYWATERS: Yes, if I made that statement.
She would be released?
BYWATERS: She would be released.
And you made the second statement?
BYWATERS: I did.
Was the second statement any more true than the first?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you say anything as to your meeting Mrs Thompson in your second statement?
BYWATERS: I do not know. What did I say?
Page 8: “Mrs Edith Thompson was not aware of my movements on Tuesday night 3rd October”. At any rate whether you intended it or not you did not correct your previous [statement] that you had not seen her on that day?
BYWATERS: No.
Why did not you put into your statement of 5th October anything about the incidents of the attack which you have told us today? Had you forgotten that?
BYWATERS: No. When I saw Mrs Thompson, she was so ill I thought she was going to die, and I thought the sooner that I got it down the quicker she would be released, and she could go home with her mother.
So you omitted that part of your story which was concerned with the threat to shoot, and the struggle?
BYWATERS: I did. That was my main object; I wanted to help her.
Can you suggest how it helped her to omit that important fact?
BYWATERS: She would have been released. I did not trouble about details or anything like that. I had questions put to me, and I said “Yes, you say it.”
You said yes to anything suggested?
BYWATERS: Practically anything.
May I say that statement there was no more true in substance than the other statement was, or that you did not care whether it was true?
BYWATERS: Oh, yes, it is true; part of it I said myself.
Was it true as you said in your statement that you waited for Mrs Thompson and her husband?
BYWATERS: No.
That was untrue?
BYWATERS: That was untrue. I had that put to me.
What you actually did was to catch them up?
BYWATERS: Yes, I overtook them.
Are you a right-handed man or a left-handed man?
BYWATERS: Right, naturally.
Did you strike the first blow from behind?
BYWATERS: I struck the first blow in front; his right arm.
Did the struggle take place at one spot, or was he moving forward?
BYWATERS: I could not say whether we moved. I do not imagine we stood still.
Did you say you remembered striking one blow at his throat?
BYWATERS: I did not say that.
Do you remember?
BYWATERS: I cannot remember the details of anything.
Do you remember striking one blow at his throat?
BYWATERS: I do not.
And you do not remember anything, do you say, after you pushed Mrs Thompson away?
BYWATERS: I remember pushing Thompson up the street, and the conversation between us and the subsequent events.
Did you not discuss at the tea room on that afternoon the possibility of meeting them that night?
BYWATERS: We did not stay in the tearoom.
You left the tearoom with her?
BYWATERS: She did not come inside.
Did you leave the tearoom in order to join her?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did not you discuss with her something desperate?
BYWATERS: I did not.
Did not you refer to her husband except in connection with the theatre party?
BYWATERS: That is the only way we referred to him.
Did she tell you she had abandoned the idea of suicide?
BYWATERS: No.
Did she make any reference to poison or force or violence?
BYWATERS: She did not.
And your story is that you went out from the Graydons never intending to use violence to Mr Thompson?
BYWATERS: I never intended to see them when I first went out.
You formed the idea on your way from the station at West Ham?
BYWATERS: East Ham.
Is this true in your second statement “I only meant to injure him”?
BYWATERS: It is hardly true, I meant to stop him from killing me.
“I did not intend to kill him; I only meant to injure him.” Was that true that you went there to injure him?
BYWATERS: No, it is not.
“I gave him the opportunity of standing up to me as a man, but he would not.” Was that true?
BYWATERS: That was on the occasion – when I said that I referred to a back occasion.
Not to this occasion?
BYWATERS: No
Did you on this occasion give him an opportunity of standing up to you as a man?
BYWATERS: No, I did not suggest any violence or fisticuffs at all.
Do you mean to suggest that he made the first assault upon you?
BYWATERS: He did.
And that you then drew your knife?
BYWATERS: I did.
Is it the fact that you never saw any revolver or any gun at that moment?
BYWATERS: I never saw it, no.
Did you continue to stab him in the expectation of seeing one at any moment; is that true?
BYWATERS: I did not know I was stabbing him, I tried to stop him from shooting me; that is all.
RE-EXAMINED BY MR CECIL WHITELEY
Although you never saw a revolver did you believe he had one?
BYWATERS: Oh yes.
Unless you so believed it would you have drawn that knife?
BYWATERS: No, I was in fear of my life.
It has been put to you by my learned friend — he showed you the letter of September 19th and after reading it to you he said “At that time had you any intention to murder Mr Thompson and your answer was “no”. At any time have you had any intention to murder Mr Thompson?
BYWATERS: I have not.
Your attention was directed to Exhibit 5, the first statement you made, and it was suggested to you that because in the statement the words “I gathered from the observations he made that he was taking his wife to a theatre that night and that there were other members of the family going”, that you are suggesting there that was the first time you heard. Did you ever suggest in this statement or any other that the first time you heard about the theatre was at the Graydons?
BYWATERS: No, I did not suggest that. I mean to imply that —
What?
BYWATERS: I did not wish Superintendent Wensley to know that Mrs Thompson and I were meeting each other.
Were you thinking of anybody else except Mrs Thompson when that Exhibit 5 was taken from you?
BYWATERS: No.
There is one other explanation I want you to give. Just look at the letter of August 11th, Exhibit 49; it is the first of the bundle, it is page 108. Do you remember your attention being directed to that “Darlingest, will you please take these letters back now”. I want you to tell the court what those letters were? There has been some misunderstanding about that?
BYWATERS: Those letters are now in the possession of the police; they are letters written to me by a lady in Australia.
How did they come into the possession of Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: I had given them to her to read.
And so those letters returned to you by her were not letters you had ever written to Mrs Thompson?
BYWATERS: Oh no.
Your attention has been directed to a number of letters written by Mrs Thompson. There are two letters Exhibits 30 and 31 which were written by you?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Are those in similar terms to all the other letters that you wrote to Mrs Thompson when you were abroad?
BYWATERS: Not all the letters — some.
Love letters?
BYWATERS: Yes.
Did you ever in any letter to Mrs Thompson say anything with regard to giving poison to her husband, or anything of that sort?
BYWATERS: I did not.
MR WHITELEY: Thank you.
(Prisoner Bywaters returned to the dock)
Mr WHITELEY: My Lord, that is our case.
EVIDENCE FOR THE PRISONER THOMPSON
EDITH JESSIE THOMPSON (Prisoner) Sworn
EXAMINED BY MR WALTER FRAMPTON
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Does the witness prefer to be seated?
Mr WALTER FRAMPTON: If your Lordship would allow it. (Prisoner became seated) Mrs Thompson, is your name Edith Jessie Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Will you try and keep your voice up. Were you married to Percy Thompson on 15th February 1916?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
I think at the time of your marriage and for some years before you were employed by Messrs Carlton and Prior?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was.
Did you continue in that employment after your marriage?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Was your marriage a happy one?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, not particularly so.
Can you keep your voice up a little, Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think I was never really happy, but for perhaps two years it was better than it had been.
After a lapse of two years were there constant differences and troubles between you?
EDITH THOMPSON: There were.
Did you and your husband often discuss the question of separation?
EDITH THOMPSON: Very often.
Was the question of separation discussed between you and your husband long before June of 1921?
EDITH THOMPSON: Oh yes, a very long time.
Had you known the family of Bywaters for some years before 1921.
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Did your husband know them well by 1921?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot say well; he knew them, he had met them often.
In June of 1921 did you with your husband and some friends go to the Isle of Wight for a holiday?
EDITH THOMPSON: We did.
Did the defendant Bywaters accompany you there?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
Did he go there himself or did he go with you at the invitation of anybody?
EDITH THOMPSON: He went at the invitation of my husband.
Did you say that he went at the invitation of your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, of my husband.
How long did you remain there?
EDITH THOMPSON: A week.
From there did you come back to Ilford?
EDITH THOMPSON: We did.
Did Bywaters come back with you?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
And did he come back to your house?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
Did he remain there, living with you, your husband and yourself until August 5th?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
Mrs Thompson, during that holiday in the Isle of Wight and while Bywaters was at your house had you conceived an affection for him?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
None of us down here heard your answer.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The answer was “No”.
ME FRAMPTON: Now, August 1st of that year was a Monday?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you have some trouble with your husband that day?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
What was the cause of it?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was quite a trivial matter; I think it originated over a pin, eventually it was brought to a head by my sister not appearing at tea when she said she would; I wanted to wait for her and my husband objected and said a lot of things to me about my family that I resented.
And you having resented the things that he said about your family did he do anything to you?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
What did he do?
EDITH THOMPSON: He struck me several times and he eventually threw me across the room.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He eventually did what?
Mr FRAMPTON: ‘He eventually threw me across the room.’
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is that what you said?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
MR FRAMPTON: Was the defendant Bywaters in the house at this time?
EDITH THOMPSON: He was in the garden.
And in the course of the disturbance did he come into the room?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did. In the course of my journey across the room I knocked a chair over and of course it made a noise; the window was open at the bottom, and he heard the noise at least I suppose he did, because he came in.
And did he interfere between you and your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did; he stopped my husband.
Did Bywaters continue to live in the house from the 1st to the 5th August and then did he leave?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did if 5th was a Friday.
Yes?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
On the 1st August after Bywaters had intervened in the trouble between you and your husband, was there any discussion between the three of you?
EDITH THOMPSON: Later there was.
That same day?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: On the 1st, do you mean?
EDITH THOMPSON: On the 1st, yes.
MR FRAMPTON:- What was the discussion about?
EDITH THOMPSON: My separation.
Can you remember what was said?
EDITH THOMPSON: I am afraid I cannot exactly, except that I wanted one and he entreated my husband to separate from me.
What did your husband say?
He said what he usually said, that he would not.
EDITH THOMPSON: He would not?
EDITH THOMPSON: At first he said he would, and I said to him “You always tell me that when I mention the subject and later when it actually comes you refuse to grant it to me.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Refuse to what?
MR FRAMPTON: “grant to me”, is what she said, my Lord. I suppose she means to agree to it.
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, agree to it.
That took place on the 1st August?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, on the Bank Holiday.
Between the Monday, the Bank Holiday, and the Friday, when Bywaters left, was there any further discussion between you and your husband about separation?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not that I remember.
Bywaters leaving on the 5th August, we know that he went to sea on the 9th September. After he left the house did you see him from time to time?
EDITH THOMPSON: Occasionally, yes.
We know that you wrote him a letter on Augist 11th of that yar, that is six days after he left?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
MR FRAMPTON: My Lor, I shall at some stage need to go through many of these letters with the witness; may she be furnished with a bundle?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes. (Bundle handed)
MR FRAMPTON:- Now, Mrs Thompson, before I take you through some of these letters I want to put two or three general questions to you. You have told us already that your married life after the first few years was an unhappy one and that you had often discussed with your husband the question of separation. Have you at any time from the marriage until the death of your husband ever done anything to injure him physically?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Have you ever even wished for his death?
EDITH THOMPSON: I beg pardon?
Have you ever even wished for his death?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is not it unwise to put these leading questions, there are the letters written by the witness, and the jury might assume that the lady was not speaking the truth in consequence of your putting leading questions.
MR FRAMPTON: When specific allegations are brought one has to put direct questions.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It may be, but your question was ‘Did you ever even wish for your husband’s death?’
MR FRAMPTON: The only reference in a letter is to the woman who lost three husband and “I cannot lose one”. That is nothing to do with wishing a man’s death. Some of these questions must take the form of leading questions.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You must take your own course. I only intervened because of your last question. I was only wondering whether you were not pushing your witness further than necessary.
MR FRAMPTON: Your Lordship is quicker at distinguishing between freedom and death than I am. (To the witness). Let me put this question to you, Mrs Thompson, have you ever been in possession of poison?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not to my knowledge.
Have you ever administered any poison to your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Have you ever given him ground glass?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
In his food?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Or in any form?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Have you ever broken up an electric light bulb and given him that?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Now, Mrs Thompson, with those questions I want to take you to some of these letters. After Bywaters left on August 5th did you write to him?
EDITH THOMPSON: After when did you say?
After he left in August 1921?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Did you write him a letter which you will find at page 108 in your bundle it is dated August 11th, 1921 “Darlingest Will you please take these letters back now? I have nowhere to keep them except a small box I have, and I want that for my own letters only, and I feel scared to death in case anybody else should read them.” Now what were those letters?
EDITH THOMPSON: They were letters written to him I understand by a girl in Australia.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did you say “a girl in Australia”?
EDITH THOMPSON: A girl in Australia.
MR FRAMPTON: “I have nowhere to keep them except a small cash box I have just bought. I feel scared to death in case anybody else should read them.” What did that refer to, Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: Well, you hardly like letters being read by anybody if they are lying about.
What sort of letters were they that were written by the lady in Australia to Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: You have the letters there; they were personal letters.
I have not the letters; the police have the letters. Were they what would be called love letters?
EDITH THOMPSON: You would hardly call them love letters – personal letters.
Were they letters of yours?
EDITH THOMPSON: None at all.
Had you corresponded with Bywaters before this date?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think not; I cannot remember really.
Now you tell us that you were seeing Bywaters occasionally after he left on the 5th. The next letter I want you to look at is at page 12. It is simply this: “Come and see me Monday lunch time please darling. He suspects.” I want you to tell my lord and the members of the jury what you meant by “he suspects”.
EDITH THOMPSON: I meant that my husband suspected I had seen Bywaters; I think it was on the Friday previous to that date.
Did you see him upon that day?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot say I saw him; I imagine I did from this letter. I usually saw him on Fridays.
Now did you see him up to the time he sailed on 9th September?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
I think he came back at the end of October?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, I believe it was so.
Did he remain in this country until the early part of November?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, that is so.
Until the 11th. After he sailed did you correspond with him?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you write him an undated letter which you will in your bundle at page 32, Ex. 162?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
I want you to look at the first paragraph on the first page. This is written seven days after Bywaters had sailed: “All I could think about last night was that compact we made. Shall we have to carry it thro’? Don’t let us darlint. I would like to live and be happy only for a little while, but for all the while you still love me. Death seemed horrible last night. When you think about it darlint, it does seem a horrible thing to die when you have never been happy, really happy, for one little minute.” What compact were you referring to in that letter to Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: The compact of suicide.
Had you discussed the question of suicide with Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had.
When had you discussed the question of suicide with Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: Some time previous to the writing of this letter; I cannot state exactly when.
He was home from the 29th October until the 11th November. Was it discussed at all during that period?
EDITH THOMPSON: Oh, yes.
What was said about it?
EDITH THOMPSON: That nothing was worth living for, and that it would be far easier to be dead.
Had you discussed any particular means of committing suicide?
EDITH THOMPSON: I believe we had.
Did you, or did not you, after Bywaters had sailed on that voyage, send him from time to time cuttings out of the papers?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Were they generally cuttings of sensational matters appearing at the time?
EDITH THOMPSON: They were.
I want you just at the moment, while we are on the question of suicide, to turn to page 52, Ex. 20. Amongst the cuttings that you had sent to Bywaters in your letters was there an account of an inquest upon a girl named Freda Kempton?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Had she died through taking an overdose of cocaine.
EDITH THOMPSON: She had.
In your letter you say this “I think the ‘red hair’ one is true in parts”.
EDITH THOMPSON: On page 52, did you say?
On page 52, Ex. 20 “The Kempton case cutting may be interesting if it’s to be the same method”.
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
What were you referring to there, Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: Our compact of suicide.
Will you look at page 86, Ex. 27. The page I want you to look at there is page 88. You say there “I had the wrong porridge to-day, but I don’t suppose it will matter; I don’t seem to care much either way. You’ll probably say I am careless, and I admit I am, but I don’t care, do you?” What were you referring to there when you said “I had the wrong porridge to-day?”
EDITH THOMPSON: I was referring to – I really cannot explain.
The suggestion here Mrs Thompson is that into your husband’s porridge you had from time to time put things?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had what?
You had put things into his porridge to injure your husband, glass, for instance?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had not done so.
Can you give us any explanation of what you had in your mind when you said you had the wrong porridge?
EDITH THOMPSON: Except we had suggested or talked about that sort of thing, and I had previously said, “Oh, yes, I will give him something one of these days.”
By MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You talked about poison, is that what you mean?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not mean anything in particular.
MR FRAMPTON: What had you talked about?
EDITH THOMPSON: We had talked about making my husband ill.
How had you come to talk about making your husband ill?
EDITH THOMPSON: We were discussing my unhappiness.
Did that include your husband’s treatment of you?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Now you say you probably said that you would give him something?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Did you ever give him anything?
EDITH THOMPSON: Nothing whatever.
Did your husband take porridge in the mornings?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
Did you prepare the porridge?
EDITH THOMPSON: I never did.
Who did prepare it?
EDITH THOMPSON: Mrs Lester.
Whenever your husband took porridge was it prepared by Mrs Lester?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was, she had a porridge, and I had not.
How did you receive it from Mrs Lester?
EDITH THOMPSON: I received it on a plate ready served.
Already served?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes
There is one passage I want to call your attention to in that letter on page 89, the next page. You say there “You know darling that I am beginning to think I have gone wrong in the way I manage this affair”. Have you got it?
EDITH THOMPSON: I have.
” I think perhaps it would have been better had I acquiesced in everything he said and did or wanted to do. At least it would have disarmed any suspicion he might have, and that if we have to use drastic measures”. What were you meaning by the “drastic measures” you might have to use?
EDITH THOMPSON: Leaving England.
Leave England.
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, with Bywaters.
Now, Mrs Thompson, will you turn to page 13 which is exhibit 13, new page 16. Have you got it?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
This is a letters which bears date 3rd January 1922, four days before Bywaters got back from the trip, and the second paragraph reads as follows: “Immediately I have received a second letter I have destroyed the first, and when I got the third I destroy the second, and so on. Now the only one I have is the “Dear Edie” one written to 41 which I am going to keep; it may be useful; who knows? By the way I had a New Year’s card. Why were you keeping that letter?
EDITH THOMPSON: I wanted to show it to my people if I were asked if I had heard from Mr Bywaters for Christmas.
That was a letter wishing you all good wishes for Christmas?
EDITH THOMPSON: Quite.
Were you keeping in order that your husband might see it?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not think about him. My people were certain to ask if I had ever heard from him, as they heard, and they thought it strange perhaps I did not.
Is it a fact that you did not keep Bywaters’ letters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not.
Why did you destroy those?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is a habit of mine to destroy letters, anybody’s letters.
Now will you look at the next paragraph on that page: “Darlint, I have surrendered to him unconditionally now. Do you understand me, I think it the best way to disarm any suspicion. In fact he has several times asked me if I am happy now, and I have said yes, quite, but you know that’s not the truth, don’t you”. What is the meaning of that paragraph, Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: When I wrote that letter I was expecting Mr Bywaters home in a few days, and I knew if my husband had any suspicion he was coming home he would try to prevent me from seeing him.
And you thought by surrendering to him you would allay any suspicion of meeting him?
EDITH THOMPSON: No doubt I did.
I do not think there is anything I need to trouble you with there, except there is a paragraph on page 15 in which you say: “Thanking you for those greetings darlint, but you won’t always be ‘the man with no right’ will you?” What had that reference to?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had hopes of obtaining a divorce from my husband, and Bywaters would marry me.
Will you now turn to page 18, exhibit 15, page 20 new numbering. Will you just read the first part in that letter; have you got it before you?
EDITH THOMPSON: I have.
“Darlint; you must do something this time. I am not really impatient, but opportunities come and go by – because I’m helpless and I think and think and think – perhaps it will never come again”. What did you mean by “You must do something this time”?
EDITH THOMPSON: I meant he must find me some sort of situation or take me away altogether without one.
I heard the first part, but not the second. You meant he must find you some situation, or –
EDITH THOMPSON: Take me away without one.
Had you discussed at this time the question of Bywaters finding you a situation?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had.
Had you discussed any place where he was to look for you?
EDITH THOMPSON: In Bombay, or Marseilles, or Australia; in fact, really anywhere where he heard of anything.
You say that meant he was to find you a situation, or you would go away without one having been found?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Will you look at the third paragraph Mrs Thompson. Perhaps I had better read the two preceding paragpha first: “I want, to tell you about this. On Wednesday we had words – in bed – Oh you know darlint. – over that same old subject and he said – it was all through you I’d altered. I told him if he ever again blamed you to me for any difference there might be in me I’d leave the house that minute, and this is not an idle threat. He said lots of other things and I bit my lip so that I shouldn’t answer – eventually went to sleep. About 2 a.m. he woke me up and asked for water as he felt ill. I got it for him and asked him what the matter was and this is what be told me – whether it is the truth I don’t know or whether he did it to frighten me, anyway it didn’t. He said someone he knows in town (not the man I previously told you about) had given him a prescription for a draught for insomnia and he’d had it made up and taken it and it made him ill. He certainly looked ill and his eyes were glassy. I’ve hunted for the said prescription everywhere and can’t find it and asked him what he had done with it and he said the chemist kept it”. Mrs Thompson, is that a true account of something that happened to your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Absolutely true
Did he suffer from insomnia?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
Did he suffer from heart too?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
And did he take medicines for both?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
I did not know whether it is suggested, but I put the question to you: were you in any way responsible for that condition that you describe in this letter?
EDITH THOMPSON: None whatever.
On the same page you will see a sentence: “I told Avis about the incident, only I told her as if it frightened and worried me as I thought perhaps it might be useful at some future time that I had told somebody. What do you think, darlint. His sister Maggie came in last night and he told her, so now there are two witnesses, altho’ I wish he hadn’t told her– but left me to do it. It would be so easy darlint – if I had things; I do hope I shall.” What is the meaning of that paragraph Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: I wrote that to let Bywaters think I was willing to do anything to help him, to retain his affection.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I cannot hear a word
MR FRAMPTON: You wrote that to let Mr Bywaters think you do anything?
EDITH THOMPSON: To retain his affections.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It would be convenient to adjourn now.
(Adjourned for a short time, Bailiffs being sworn to take charge of the Jury)
MR FRAMPTON: Mrs Thompson, before the Court adjourned you were just dealing with exhibit 15, at page 19 of your bundle, and you told us you were writing those things in order to retain Bywaters’ affections. Will you now look at exhibit 16 at page 24. It is page 26 of the new numbering. The first sentence I want to direct your attention to us at the middle of page 25: will you turn to that. You there write: “I suppose it is not possible for you to send it to me – not at all possible, I do so chafe at wasting time darlint”. What were you referring to there when you wrote that?
EDITH THOMPSON: Mr Bywaters said he would bring me something.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You must try to raise your voice.
EDITH THOMPSON: Mr Bywaters had told me he was bringing me something, and I suggested to send it to me, to allow him to think I was eager for him to send me something to do what was suggested.
MR FRAMPTON: We did not hear the end of it Mrs Thompson.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “I was eager to press him to send it”. I am not cross-examining; it is for you to find out what “it” is.
THE WITNESS: I wanted him to think I was eager to help him, to bind him closer to me, to retain his affections.
We want to know what “it” is; that is the question.
EDITH THOMPSON: I had no idea; something he suggested.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “I was eager to press him to send it instead of bringing it, and I had no idea what it was”.
MR FRAMPTON: On the next page there is this paragraph: “This thing that I am going to do for both of us will it ever at all, make any difference between us, darlint, do you understand what I mean. Will you ever think any the less of me – not now, I know darlint – but later on– perhaps some years hence – do you think you will feel any different – because of this thing that I shall do. Darlint, if I thought you would I’d not do it, no not even so that we could be happy for one day even one hour. I’m not hesitating darlint– through fear of any consequences of the action; don’t think that but I’d sooner go on in the old way for years and years and retain your love and respect. I would like you to write to me darlint and talk to me about this”. What was the thing that you were both going to do for both you and Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was to go away and live with him without being married to him.
The next exhibit is exhibit 20. I do not think I need trouble with it because I put the question quite early to you in your examination. That was the letter in which you sent a cutting of the Freda Kempton case, and I think in that letter you enclosed two or three other cuttings entitled “Do men like red haired women” –
EDITH THOMPSON: On page 20 did you say that was?
A page 52; it really begins at 49; you need not look at it. Now I want you to look at exhibit 50; in your bundle is at page 109 and 139 in the jurors’ numbered bundle. Will you look at the bottom of page 109. You see there this paragraph: “This time really will be the last you will go away – like things are, won’t it? We said it before darlint I know and we failed but there will be no failure this next time darlint; there must not be. I’m telling you – if things are the same again then I am going with you – wherever it is – if its to sea – I’m coming too and if it’s to nowhere I’m also coming darlint. You’ll never leave me behind again, never, unless things are different”. What is the meaning of that paragraph?
EDITH THOMPSON: That referred to my constant requests to my husband for a divorce. That is what I meant when I said we had failed before. We had tried to get a divorce or get him to accede to one, but I meant if I had not got his consent the next time I was going away with Mr Bywaters at whatever cost, and whatever it meant.
Do I understand the failure was a failure to induce your husband to try proceedings to divorce you?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
And if you were not able to persuade him to take the steps, then you were going away, at whatever cost, with Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
The next one I have to trouble you with is exhibit 17, and I want you to look at page 35 in your bundle.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Exhibit 17 begins at page 41 new numbering.
MR FRAMPTON: Have you got page 35?
EDITH THOMPSON: I have.
You see the second paragraph on that page: “He was telling his mother etc. the circumstances of my Sunday morning escapade and he puts great stress on the fact of the tea tasting bitter”. Was there ever any time when your husband complained to his mother about the tea tasting bitter?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not to my knowledge.
Was this an imaginary incident then that you were recording?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Is your husband’s mother is still alive?
Yes.
Then you proceed “Now I think whatever else I try it in again will still taste bitter – he will recognise it and be more suspicious still, and if the quantity is still not successful it will hinder any chance I may have of trying when you come home. Do you understand? I thought a lot about what you said of Dan”. Had you at that time or any time put anything into your husband’s tea?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
Had he ever at any time made complaint that his tea tasted bitter?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Now at the bottom that page appears this paragraph: “I’m going to try the glass again occasionally when its safe. I have got an electric light globe this time”.
What did you mean Bywaters to understand by that?
EDITH THOMPSON: That I was willing to help him in whatever he wanted me to do or suggested I should do or we should do.
Had you got an electric light bulb?
EDITH THOMPSON: There were electric lights in the house.
Had you got one for any purpose of this description?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had not.
Did you ever intend to use one?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not.
Did you ever at any time use one?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Now will you turn to page 38 in your bundle, exhibit 18.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Page 51 in the new numbering.
MR FRAMPTON: I am told the jury have both numbers now, my Lord. “Mother and Dad came over to me to dinner”.
EDITH THOMPSON: I have it.
“I had plenty to do. On Monday Mr and Mrs Birnage came to tea and we all went to the Hippodrome in the evening. By the way, what is aromatic tincture of opium. Avis drew my attention to a bottle of this sealed in the medicine chest in your room. I took possession of it and when he missed it and asked me for it I refused to give it him – he refuses to tell me where he got it and for what reason he wants it, so I shall keep it till I hear from you.” Had your sister Avis found a bottle of aromatic tincture of opium?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
That is your sister Avis?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Had you purchased that?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had not.
Did you know it was in the house before she found it?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had no idea.
Did you know whether or not your husband was using that tincture of opium?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
Did you know what it was?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had no idea.
Beyond the name?
EDITH THOMPSON: None whatever.
I see in that letter you are asking Bywaters what is it. “By the way, what is aromatic tincture of opium?”
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
Did your husband know that it was found?
EDITH THOMPSON: Oh, yes.
Did he claim possession of it?
EDITH THOMPSON: He missed it and asked me about it.
What was done with that?
EDITH THOMPSON: My sister took possession of it, and threw the contents down the sink I believe, and threw the bottle away.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Avis you mean?
EDITH THOMPSON: Avis.
MR FRAMPTON Now there is a bottle exhibited here Mrs Thompson, exhibit 61, which is a bottle of aromatic tincture of opium, is that a different bottle from the one your sister found, the finding of which you are recording in your letter?
EDITH THOMPSON: May I see it?
Yes, exhibit 61 (handed).
EDITH THOMPSON: It is similar: I cannot say it is the same.
Do I understand you to say it was a similar bottle to that but you cannot say whether it was the same?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot.
You told us that your sister threw away the contents?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Can you tell us whether the bottle was preserved or not?
EDITH THOMPSON: I have no idea.
No idea?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
Now then next paragraph is one I want you to direct your attention to for a moment: “I used the light bulb three times, but the third time he found a piece so I’ve given it up until you come home.” Is there any truth in that statement?
EDITH THOMPSON: None whatever.
Did you at this time or any time use the light bulb?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never at all.
Or was there ever an occasion when your husband found a piece of glass in his food or anywhere?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
I see in that letter you go on to refer to, and give extracts from books you were reading. Were you in the habit of doing that?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Describing in detail the characters in novels you were reading?
EDITH THOMPSON: Always.
I can lead as to this because the jury have had all the letters. Were you in those letters giving large extracts and asking Bywaters’ opinion and views upon the various characters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was.
The class of literature you were reading; and then you were discussing with him several of the names we find in the correspondence “Maria”, “The Guarded Flame,” “The Common Law,” “The Fruitful Vine,” “The Business of Life,” Bella Donna,” and “The Way of this Woman.” Is that the class of book you were reading?
EDITH THOMPSON: Except the first. Did you say “Maria”?
MR FRAMPTON: “Maria”?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes. “Maria”
The next passage I want you to look at is on page 44, part of exhibit 19. You see towards the bottom of that page: “It will come right I know one day if not by our efforts some other way. We’ll wait eh darlint, and you’ll try and get some money and then we can go away and not worry about anything or anybody. You said it was enough for an elephant. Perhaps it was. But you don’t allow for the taste making only a small quantity to be taken. It sounded like a reproach, was it meant to be?” What was it that you were referring to there as being enough for an elephant.?
EDITH THOMPSON: Something Mr Bywaters had given me in a small bottle.
This letter is dated May 1st 1922. Mr Bywaters told us in the month of March he gave you some quinine.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: He said he had given her something before he went on his voyage.
MR FRAMPTON: Was that the stuff you were referring to?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
In that paragraph you use the expression “We’ll wait eh darlint, and you’ll try and get some money” —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I think you should go on and ask the question: “Had she given some of this to her husband or not”.
MR FRAMPTON: I am sorry I missed it; I did not intend to.
Had you given any of this we know to be quinine now from Bywaters to your husband?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Do ask her the question you know; Had you given some to your husband?
MR FRAMPTON: I did put it to you quite generally at the commencement of your evidence, and repeat it: Did you at any time give anything to your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: No
Out of the ordinary?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Now in that paragraph you refer to the fact that you will wait until he gets some money. Was that a hindrance to you both going away at that time?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
The want of money.
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes
I want you to turn to the next page, page 45: “I was buoyed up with the hope of the light bulb, and I used a lot – big pieces too – not powdered, and it has no effect. I quite expected to be able to send that cable: but no, nothing has happened from it and now your letter tells me about the bitter taste again. O darlint I do feel so down and unhappy.” I will put the same question: Had you administered any glass fragments of light bulbs to your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: None at all.
Either in large or small pieces?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never at all.
You say “I quite expected to be able to send that cable but no, nothing has happened from it”. Had you arranged to send a cable to Bywaters about anything?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, I had.
What had you arranged to cable him about?
EDITH THOMPSON: Principally about if I was successful in getting a divorce from my husband.
Then you go on to say “Your letter tells me about the bitter taste again” What had that reference to?
EDITH THOMPSON: Something Mr Bywaters had said to me about a bitter taste I suppose.
Bitter taste of what?
EDITH THOMPSON: Of the stuff I had in the bottle.
Then you proceed “Wouldn’t the stuff make small pills coated together with soap and dipped in liquorice powder – like Beechams – try while you are away”. What did you wish Mr Bywaters to understand by that Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: I wanted him to think I was willing to do what he wanted me to do or expected me to do or asked me to do – to agree with him. I wanted him to think I would do anything for him to keep him to me.
Turn to exhibit 22, page 62. You commence that letter of 18th May 1922 with a quotation. Have you got it before you? “It must be remembered that digitalin is a cumulative poison and that the same dose harmless once yet frequently repeated becomes deadly”. Did you know what digitalin was?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had no idea.
Why did you write and ask Bywaters “Is it any use?”?
EDITH THOMPSON: For the same reason “I wanted him to feel that I was willing to help him, to keep him to me”.
For the same reason “I wanted him to feel that I was willing to help him to keep him to me”. I do not want to repeat your answer.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN “I was willing to help” if what?
MR FRAMPTON: Have you ever had digitalin in your possession to your knowledge?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never to my knowledge.
Was your first knowledge of the existence of such a thing from reading “Bella Donna”?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
Now will you turn to page 64, which is the same letter. There you say “Hurry up and take me away to Egypt if you like, but anywhere where it is warm”. What did that mean Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: Just what I said. I wanted him to take me away at any cost; it would not matter what happened.
Was that the thought in your mind at this time, that you should go away with him?
EDITH THOMPSON: Uppermost.
Will you turn to exhibit 23 first because I just want you to refer to it on the question of you going abroad with him. It is page 72 of my copy. Mrs Thompson, you told the Court earlier in your examination that you had been asking Bywaters to find a situation for you abroad?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
And in one of your letters you had expressed yourself: situation or not you were going?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
In this letter you say in the middle of the page “Your news about it” – it is a blank in my copy – “from Bombay and waiting till next trip made me feel very sad and down-hearted – it will be awful waiting all that time, 3 months will it be – I can’t wait – yes, I can – I will – I must – I’ll make myself somehow – I’ll try to be patient darlint”. What was the news from Bombay that you were referring to there?
EDITH THOMPSON: That he had tried and failed to find me a position to go to.
He had tried and failed to get what Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: To find me a position.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I find there is a reference at the top of the page to “Bella Donna”. I happen to have read the book. I do not know whether the jury have or not, but if they have not I think you should give a description of it to them; an impression might be left on their minds I think different to that on those of many who have read the book, which might be against you. I have got it marked in my copy here, and nobody has mentioned what the book is about – you have not – and I do happen to know what the book is, and what the motive of the book is.
MR FRAMPTON: I am going to read from the top of that page 72.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is a passage marked at the top: “I would like you to read Bella Donna first. You may learn something from it to help us”.
MR FRAMPTON: Yes, my Lord. “I had already sent you two books to Plymouth darlint – the only two I have read since you have been away, I would like you to read ‘Bella Donna’ first. You may learn something from it to help us. Then you can read ‘The Fruitful Vine’ when you are away. You say you think, I think you do not talk enough about things and books to me, Darlingest boy, I am not going to say anything at all” –
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not like to conduct the case from either one side or the other, but somebody ought to clear that up. It might convey a most damaging impression if not dealt with.
MR FRAMPTON: You see there you are telling Bywaters you would like him to read “Bella Donna” as he might learn something from it to help you, but what were you referring to in “Bella Donna” which you wished him to read which might help you both?
EDITH THOMPSON: The book was really about Egypt and it interested us a lot about Egypt. I thought he might learn something about Egypt.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I should like to clear this up. Is not the main point of it the lady killed her husband with slow poisoning?
THE WITNESS: Do you ask me that question?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes. It is plain to me —
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was going to deal with it in cross- examination.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I saw it on the page, and although I never like to take part in it you know it must come out.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If your Lordship thought I said I had not read the book I conveyed the wrong impression.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Possibly some of the jury might not know it, and I thought it ought to be cleared up.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was going to cross-examine the lady.
MR FRAMPTON: Do you recollect any particular part or character in that book that you wish to call Bywaters’ attention to?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not particularly, no.
Turn to page 115, will you, in your bundle, exhibit 52. I want to read this to you and see if this will refresh your memory at all, because it is something you wrote about “Bella Donna”.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is a long account of Baroudi there.
MR FRAMPTON: “About Bella Donna – no I don’t agree with you about her darlint. I hate her – hate to think of her – I dont think other people made her what she was – that sensual pleasure loving greedy Bella Donna was always there. If she had originally been different a good man like Nigel would have altered her darlint– she never knew what it was to be denied anything – she never knew goodness as you and I know it – she was never interested in a good man – or any man unless he could appease her sensual nature. I dont think she could have been happy with nothing except Baroudi on a desert island she liked – no love and lived for his money or what it could give her – the luxury of his yacht the secrecy with which he acted all bought with his money – that’s what she liked. Yes she was clever – I admire the cleverness – but she was cunning, there is a difference darlint, I dont admire that. I certainly dont think she would ever have killed Nigel with her hands – she would have been found out – she didn’t like that did she? being found out – it was that secret cunning in Baroudi that she admired so much – the cunning that matched her own. If she had loved Baroudi enough she could have gone to him – but she liked the security of being Nigel’s wife – for the monetary assets it held. She doesnt seem a woman to me – she seems abnormal – a monster utterly selfish and self-living. Darlint this is where we differ about women.”
Was that your true opinion about the character in that book you were referring to?
EDITH THOMPSON: Absolutely.
MR FRAMPTON: My Lord, I am glad you called my attention to it (To the witness): I now want you to turn exhibit 24, at page 74. Have you got it?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes
I want you to notice the date of this letter first; it may be important. The date of that letter is the 13th June 1922. Do you remember the date of that month that Bywaters had returned to sea?
EDITH THOMPSON: I fancy it was the 9th.
The 13th, was that a Monday. I will get the exact day in a moment for you – Tuesday. You are writing on the Tuesday following the departure of Bywaters this: “I’m trying hard – very very hard to be brave. I know my pal wants me to. On Thursday he was on the ottoman at the foot of the bed and said he was dying and wanted to – he had another heart attack thro me. Darlint I had to laugh because I knew it could not be a heart attack.”
That Thursday – was that the Thursday before the Tuesday?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
That would be the 8th?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
The day before Bywaters sailed?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Had there been a scene between yourself and your husband on that day?
EDITH THOMPSON: In the evening there had.
Of the 8th?
EDITH THOMPSON: Of the 8th.
What was it about?
EDITH THOMPSON: Mr Bywaters had taken me out to dinner, and I had arrived home later than I usually do, and my husband made a scene.
Was he on the ottoman?
EDITH THOMPSON: He was.
Did he appear to have a heart attack?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not to me because I knew when he had a heart attack; it was entirely different.
In the course of that scene did he say he was dying and wanted to die?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
Was the scene due entirely to the fact that you had been out that night, and did not return till late?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
And that was the night before Bywaters sailed?
EDITH THOMPSON: That was.
And that is what you mean when you say “He had another heart attack through me”?
Yes, he said it was through me.
Then you go on “Darlint I had to laugh at this because I knew it couldn’t be a heart attack. When he saw this had no effect on me he got up and stormed. I said exactly what you told me to and he replied that he knew that’s what I wanted and he wasn’t going to give it to me – it would make things far too easy for both of you (meaning you and me) especially for you”.
Now what had you said to him while this storm was going on?
EDITH THOMPSON: I asked him to give me my freedom, and I even went so far as to tell him I would give him the information to get it.
Is it correct what you record as being said by your husband, that he would not do it because it would make it too easy for both of you?
EDITH THOMPSON: He said so.
Will you turn to page 118, exhibit 53. Mrs Thompson, you have told us that you were asking Bywaters in your letter what was aromatic tincture of opium and what was digitalin. In this letter you ask him “Darlint, how can you get ptomaine poisoning from a tin of salmon? One of our boys’ mother has died with it after being ill only three days”?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What is this exhibit?
MR FRAMPTON: Exhibit 53, page 118, old number; page 87 new number. I do not know what the suggestion is, beyond asking the question had you anything sinister in mind?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was partly idle curiosity. I was stating a fact about our boy’s mother, and it was partly curiosity.
Will you look at page 78, exhibit 75. There is only one sentence I want. You say there “When you are not near darlint I wish we had taken the easiest way”. What was the “easiest way” that you were referring to there?
EDITH THOMPSON: Suicide.
Now will you turn to page 83. Do you see the paragraph commencing “Why arent you sending me something – I wanted you to – you never do what I ask you darlint –you still have your own way always. If I don’t mind the risk why should you? Whatever happens cant be any more [worse?] than this existence – looking forward to nothing and gaining only ashes and dust and bitterness”. What were you wishing Bywaters to understand by that paragraph?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was asking him to send instead of bring something as he suggested.
Had you any particular thing in your mind?
EDITH THOMPSON: Nothing at all.
I want you to look at the last line of that letter, the postscript. “Have you studied bichloride of mercury”. What had you in your mind when you wrote that?
EDITH THOMPSON: Either two or three days previous to writing that my husband detailed to me what he had said a chemist friend of his told him.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You had better ask that question and have the answer again.
MR FRAMPTON: How came you to write that, “Have you studied bichloride of mercury”?
EDITH THOMPSON: Some days previously my husband had discussed with me a conversation that he had with his chemist friend about bichloride of mercury. He told me the chemist had given it to a girl in mistake and had made her ill.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I am afraid I have not been in a poisoning case where there has been bichloride of mercury. Has it any other name. Mr Webster described it as a corrosive poison.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is a corrosive sublimate.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is it the same as corrosive sublimate?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, my Lord.
MR FRAMPTON: Until your husband had discussed this with you had you ever heard of bichloride of mercury?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Do you know anything at all about it?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do not.
Your husband having related this to you, you asked Bywaters whether he studied it?
EDITH THOMPSON: Out of curiosity I did.
Had you ever had any bichloride of mercury in your possession?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not to my knowledge.
Will you turn now to exhibit 63, at page 140. That letter bears date August 28th 1922, and you say: “Darlingest boy, today is the 27th and it’s on a Sunday, so I am writing this in the bathroom. I always like to send you greetings on the day – not the day before or the day after. Fourteen whole months have gone by now, darlint, its so terribly long. Neither you nor I thought we should have to wait all that long time did we? although I said I would wait five years – and I will darlint – it’s only 3 years and ten months now”. 3 years and 10 months to what?
EDITH THOMPSON: To wait.
For what?
EDITH THOMPSON: To live with Mr Bywaters or go away with him or be with him only.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not know what the story was. There was something which was to be put off for five years.
MR FRAMPTON: I would like to get it from this witness if I may, my Lord (To the witness): Had you made arrangement with Bywaters to wait for five years?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had.
And what was to happen at the end of five years?
EDITH THOMPSON: If he was not in a successful position to take me away or had not in the meantime found me something to go to, well, we should part.
You would part?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: The other witness’s story was that they wanted to commit suicide, and he said, “Put it off five years”, which seems to me to be the one sensible thing I have heard. Was that discussed when you wanted to commit suicide together, that you should put it off and wait five years to see how he was getting on?
EDITH THOMPSON: We might have discussed that, but I do not remember about it.
MR FRAMPTON: You said there that you would wait five years; were you prepared to wait that time?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was.
Will you turn to page 95, exhibit 28. You see there at the bottom of that page you say: “Yes, darlint, you are jealous of him, but I want you to be. He has the right by law to all that you have the right to by my [sic] nature and love – yes darlint be jealous so much that you will do something desperate”. What do you mean by doing something desperate?
EDITH THOMPSON: Oh, to take me away at any cost. Do anything to get me away from England.
You say on the next page there ‘I felt that you were not going to come and see me this time and the feeling was awful, horrid – I felt if you refused I could not make you’. Now I only want to trouble you with two references in one letter here., and that is exhibit 60, at page 130. Do you remember the day on which you wrote that letter Mrs Thompson: it begins on page 128?
It was after Friday, but I cannot really remember.
Q, Friday was the 29th September. I do not want to take this out of order, but you did see Bywaters on the Saturday, did you not?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did, yes.
That would be the 30th?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you see him on the Sunday?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
That would be October 1st? Can you tell me by looking at that letter whether that was written by you on the Sunday?
EDITH THOMPSON: It probably was not written on the Sunday; it was probably on the Monday.
That would the 2nd?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Before or after the writing of the letter?
EDITH THOMPSON: That I could not be certain about.
On the Saturday Mrs Thompson had you told him of your engagement to go to the theatre on the Tuesday?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had.
We have heard from the witness for the prosecution that was an engagement made a fortnight before?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, probably longer.
You were going with your husband and your uncle and aunt?
EDITH THOMPSON: That was it.
I want you to look at the paragraph on page 130 which commences “Darlint” and that shows you must have written that on the Monday – “Darlint, do something tomorrow night will you; something to make you forget. I will be hurt I know, but I want you to hurt me: I do really. The bargain now seems so one-sided, so unfair, but how can I alter it”. “Tomorrow night” was the night you were going to the theatre. What did you mean y that in writing to Bywaters “Do something tomorrow night will you; something to make you forget”. What had he to forget?
EDITH THOMPSON: That I was going somewhere with my husband.
What was he to do to make him forget that?
EDITH THOMPSON: I wanted him to take my sister out.
Is that Avis?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is.
You say “I will be hurt I know, but I want you to hurt me”. What did that mean?
EDITH THOMPSON: Well, I should have been hurt.
You would feel hurt?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
By Bywaters being with a lady other than yourself?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
I want to refer to one other passage which is at the top of that page. Do you see “Darlingest, find me a job abroad. I will go tomorrow and not say I was going to a soul and not have one little regret”. I said I wouldn’t think – that I’d try to forget circumstances – pal help me to forget again. I have succeeded up to now – but its thinking of tonight and tomorrow when I cant see you and feel you holding me”. Did that really represent your feelings at that time, that you were prepared to go abroad with him at once?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Had you discussed that with him on the Saturday?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had.
Will you look at the last two lines of that letter “Don’t forget what we talked in the tearoom, I’ll still risk and try if you will we only have 3 ¾ years left darlingest”. What had you discussed in the tearoom?
EDITH THOMPSON: My freedom.
And the 3 ¾ years left were the 3 ¾ years of the 5?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Had you at any time from the month of June 1921 to the month of October this year any desire for Bywaters to commit any injury on your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: None whatever.
Was your one desire to get your freedom if you could, and if not to go away together. Bywaters returned from his last voyage on the 23rd September. Did you see him on the 23rd and 29th?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, I did not see him until the Monday, whatever date that was.
That would be the 25th?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you see him during that week?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
And again on the 29th?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Did you see him on the 30th, Saturday.
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, I did.
What time did you see him on that day?
EDITH THOMPSON: About 9 in the morning, I think.
How long were you in his company?
EDITH THOMPSON: We went back to Ilford and I left him to do some shopping, and I took it home and met him again about 11 0r 10.30 and stayed with him till 1.
I gather that you met him at 9, and you left him to do some shopping, and after that you rejoined him and were with him until midday.
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, that is so.
Where did you spend your time that morning?
EDITH THOMPSON: In Wanstead Park.
Did you see him again on the Saturday?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not at all.
On the Sunday.
EDITH THOMPSON: Not at all.
Did you see on the Monday?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
October 2nd?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
What time did you see him?
EDITH THOMPSON: I saw him at 2.15, I think it was.
Where did you see him?
EDITH THOMPSON: Outside 168 Aldersgate Street.
How much time did you spend with him that time?
EDITH THOMPSON: About an hour, having lunch.
You lunched together?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
From lunch did you return to business?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Did you see him again during that afternoon?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
What time?
EDITH THOMPSON: About 5.
Where did you meet him that night?
EDITH THOMPSON: In Fuller’s.
Did you stay in Fuller’s with him?
EDITH THOMPSON: I believe I had a coffee with him, yes.
How long did you stay with him after 5?
EDITH THOMPSON: Until about quarter to 7.
Did you return home then?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Did you see him again that night?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not at all.
During the time you were with Bywaters on the 29th and on the Saturday and on the Monday, apart from discussing what you told us about a separation from your husband, did you discuss your husband at all?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not, no.
Was there any mention or any indication of a possible assault being committed on him?
EDITH THOMPSON: None whatever.
On Tuesday 3rd October did you go to business as usual?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Did you see Bywaters during that day?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
What time?
EDITH THOMPSON: At 12.30 I think it was first [sic].
Did you lunch together?
EDITH THOMPSON: We did.
Did you see him later that day?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
What time did you see him then?
EDITH THOMPSON: About a quarter past 5.
How long were you with him?
EDITH THOMPSON: About a quarter of an hour.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: This is his evidence: “She telephoned me as usual that morning and I saw her at lunch; we went to the Queen Anne restaurant, Cheapside. She went back to her business. I went to Fuller’s shop; she met me later. I got up and went outside. I left Mrs Thompson later at Aldersgate Street station”.
MR FRAMPTON: Did you hear his Lordship read the note of Bywaters’ evidence?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Is that correct?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is correct.
Did you then go home?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not.
Did you meet your husband before going home?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Where did you meet him?
EDITH THOMPSON: In Aldersgate Street.
Did you go home together before going west, or go straight west?
EDITH THOMPSON: We went straight west.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What time did you meet your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: About a quarter to 6 I think it was.
MR FRAMPTON: Did you have a meal together before going to the theatre?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, a slight meal.
Mrs Thompson, did you anticipate, or had you any reason to think that you would see Bywaters again that day or not?
EDITH THOMPSON: None whatever, I had made arrangements to see him on the following day at lunch time.
Where had you arranged to meet him on the following day?
EDITH THOMPSON: At 168 Aldersgate Street.
Did you know where he was going to spend the evening of Tuesday the 3rd?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Where did you understand he was going to spend the evening?
EDITH THOMPSON: With my people at Shakespeare Crescent, Manor Park.
At your parents, the Graydons. I want one other thing on this date. Was your husband going to do anything the next day, the 4th?
EDITH THOMPSON: My husband was, with me.
Going with you somewhere?
EDITH THOMPSON: He was.
What were you and your husband going to do; what had you arranged to do together on the 4th?
EDITH THOMPSON: We had arranged to meet a maid who was coming up from St. Ives, at Paddington station.
At what time?
EDITH THOMPSON: I forget the time, it is the time the Cornish Riviera gets in.
Was that a maid that you had arranged to relieve you of domestic duties?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
Because you were working all day.
EDITH THOMPSON: I was.
Had anything been said at all at your meetings with Bywaters on the 3rd about seeing him again that night?
EDITH THOMPSON: Nothing at all.
Had he made any reference to your husband at all?
EDITH THOMPSON: None at all.
You spent the evening at the theatre, and came away with my husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
We know that arriving home from Ilford station you walked along Belgrave Road?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Is the 11.30 from Liverpool Street the theatre train for people living in that district?
EDITH THOMPSON: Usually, yes.
Tell is quite shortly yourself will you; as you were coming along Belgrave Road what happened?
EDITH THOMPSON: My husband and I were discussing going to a dance. I was trying to persuade him to take me to a dance a fortnight hence. We were just ordinarily talking about it, and when we got to Endsleigh Gardens I think it was —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Do keep your voice up. When you got to —
EDITH THOMPSON: – to Endsleigh Gardens a man rushed at me and knocked me aside.
MR FRAMPTON: What was the effect of that knocking you aside upon you?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was dazed. I do not remember anything about it only being knocked aside. When I came to my senses I looked around for my husband, and I saw him some distance down the road, and he seemed to be scuffling with someone, and he fell up against me and he said “oo’er” I helped him along.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Stop one minute: “He seemed to be scuffling; I went up to him”?
EDITH THOMPSON: He fell up against me.
And said “oo”er; I think you should explain that a little bit better. A man speaking does not say “oo’er”; do you mean he groaned?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot tell you exactly but it is a sound which people use when they exclaim quickly.
MR FRAMPTON: Do you mean it was an exclamation of pain?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think it was.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: These letters O-O-E-R – all depend on the exclamation.
MR FRAMPTON: Did you take it to be an exclamation of pain from your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did. I helped him along by the side of the wall, and I think he slid down the wall on to the pavement. I looked at him. I thought he was hurt and I went for a doctor. I saw a lady and gentleman —
Pause there just a for a moment Mrs Thompson. As he slid own the wall on the ground did you notice any blood coming from him?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, from his mouth.
So you went for the doctor, and you met Mr Cleveley and his sweetheart?
EDITH THOMPSON: I went along the road I met a lady and gentleman coming towards me. I asked them to get me a doctor.
You asked them to get you help?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do not remember what I said, but I know that we went to a doctor.
Did you go with them to the doctor?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did, and then I went back to my husband with them.
You went back to your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: The doctor was a long time in coming, an awful long time.
You mean it seemed a long time to you?
EDITH THOMPSON: It seemed a long time to me.
Then did the doctor come?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
Did you appreciate what the doctor said when he came?
EDITH THOMPSON: I asked him if he could get my husband home, and he said “He is dead.” I could not believe that, I still entreated him to let me take him home. I cannot remember what else I said to him.
He did not come home that night?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, they took him away.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I hope that gentleman over there is not sketching, is he?
(A police constable examined the gentleman’s book)
THE OFFICER: No, my Lord, he is writing shorthand.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Take a note by all means, but let it be understood I cannot allow sketching in this Court.
MR FRAMPTON: We know from the evidence of Mrs Lester that you told her if they would have let you go with him you could have helped him?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you still think after you had gone home your husband was alive?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, I could not realise he was dead.
Had you any idea at that time that your husband had been stabbed?
EDITH THOMPSON: None whatever.
And the doctor does not seem to have noticed that when he came to you?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did not tell me anything except that he was dead.
Had Bywaters ever at any time said anything to even suggest that he was likely to stab your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Did you know that he was possessed of a knife which is an exhibit here?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not.
Had you ever seen it before it was produced in these proceedings.
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
Mrs Thompson, on the morning of the 4th October you were seen by Detective-Inspector Hall?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, I believe it was him.
First about 11 o’clock, and then about 12 o’clock; were you asked to go to the station?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think it was sometime before 12 o’clock.
At the station did you make a statement which is exhibit 3?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Was that made by your dictation, or as the result of questions put to you and the answers given by you?
EDITH THOMPSON: That was the result of questions and answers.
Had you noticed the previous night the person with whom your husband was scuffling?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, I had not.
After the scuffle did you see him running away?
EDITH THOMPSON: I saw somebody running away.
Did you recognise who the person was?
EDITH THOMPSON: I recognised the coat and hat.
Was that the coat and hat of the defendant Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: Mr Bywaters.
In the first statement, exhibit 3, you made no reference to Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
Why was that Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was not asked about him.
You made no reference about him meeting your husband in Belgrave Road. Did you remain at lford station throughout the day of the 4th and the night?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Was your mother there with you?
EDITH THOMPSON: She was.
On the 5th did you see the defendant Bywaters there?
EDITH THOMPSON: What day was the 5th?
On the Thursday?
EDITH THOMPSON: On Thursday the 5th, I did.
We know from the detective officers what you said upon seeing him. Did you then supplement your statement by the statement that appears on exhibit 4?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did see Mr Bywaters at the station but not as the Inspector states.
Where did you see him?
EDITH THOMPSON: He was brought into the C.I.D. room to me.
Where you were?
EDITH THOMPSON: Where I was.
That is where you saw him?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is where I saw him.
After that you made the second statement?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Just one moment. I think the first statement made was “I did not see anybody at the time”.
MR FRAMPTON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is in her first statement?
MR FRAMPTON: Yes, my Lord. (To the witness): Have you got that statement before you. Just look at the statement my Lord has.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: It is not in the long statement. It is what she makes to the policeman. It is not one of the exhibits?
MR FRAMPTON: No, my Lord; it is Detective Hall’s evidence.
Why did you tell the officer the next day Mrs Thompson you had not seen any one about in Belgrave Road?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was very agitated, and I did not want to say anything against Mr Bywaters. I wanted to shield him.
Was it when you saw him at the police station that you detailed the full story?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, I made my second statement, which is the true statement, that is exhibit 4, after Inspector Wensley had said to me, “It is no use your saying he did not do it; he has already told us he has.” Inspector Wensley then said to me “Go back to the C.I.D. room and think about it and I will come for you in half an hour”, and when at the end of that half hour Inspector Hall came to me I made my statement, exhibit 4.
You have told us Mrs Thompson that when you were walking with your husband a man rushed at you and pushed you aside. Did you fall at all?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think I must have done so. I have a recollection of getting up when I went to my husband.
The next day did you find that your head was hurt at all?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had a large bump here (indicating).
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not know where “here” is.
EDITH THOMPSON: On the right side of my ear.
You had a lump?
EDITH THOMPSON: A bump.
MR FRAMPTON: Were you walking on the inside nearest the wall with your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was.
Was that bruise seen both by your mother and the Matron at the police station?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
How long did your mother remain with you at the police station?
EDITH THOMPSON: Until 9 o’clock on the Thursday evening.
Mrs Thompson had you the remotest idea that any attack was going to be made on your husband that night?
EDITH THOMPSON: None whatever.
Or at any time?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never at any time.
CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
Mrs Thompson, have you any clear recollection now of what happened when your husband was killed?
EDITH THOMPSON: Except what I have said: I was dazed.
Have you a clear recollection now of what happened? Except for the time that you were dazed can you tell me clearly?
EDITH THOMPSON: I have told you.
You can tell me, where is the clearest statement of what you remember – in exhibit 4.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Put it to her.
THE SOLICTOR-GENERAL: I may remind you, you made three statements, I will call your attention to them. One of them was made to the police verbally and I will read it; Another is Exhibit 3, the long statement, and then there is the short one which I think you have in front of you.
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
Is Exhibit 4, the short statement, everything you remember, and is it true?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is true.
Was the statement then to the police which I will read to you, I do not mean the very long one, your recollection at the time, or was it deliberately untrue? Let me read it: “We were coming along Belgrave Road and just past the corner of Endsleigh Gardens when I heard him call out ‘Oo’er’, and he fell up against me. I put out my arms to save him and found blood which I thought was coming from his mouth. I tried to hold him up. He staggered for several yards towards Kensington Gardens and then fell against the wall and slid down. He did not speak to me. I cannot say if I spoke to him. I felt him and found his clothing wet with blood. He never moved after he fell. We had no quarrel on the way, we were quite happy together. Immediately I saw the blood I ran across the road to a Doctor’s. I appealed to a lady and gentleman who were passing and the gentleman also went to the Doctor’s. The Doctor came and told me my husband was dead. Just before he fell down I was walking on his right hand side on the inside of the pavement nearest the wall. We were side by side. I did not see anybody about at the time. My husband and I were talking about going to a dance.”
Now, did you intend to tell an untruth then about the incident?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Was that to shield Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
Was it also an intentional untruth when you said, or suggested, that the first thing was when you heard him call out “oo-er” you fell up against him?
EDITH THOMPSON: Will you repeat that?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I do not think she has got that before her.
THE WITNESS: No, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Look at my copy; you can keep it while he is asking you questions. It is what the policeman took down and read from his notebook what you said.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is about the sixth line: “We were coming along Belgrave Road”. Do you see that; six lines from the top of the page?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, I have it.
Q: “We were coming along Belgrave Road and just past the corner of Endsleigh Gardens when I heard him call out ‘Oo’er’ and he fell up against me”. You see that suggests, does it not, that he was taken ill and that nobody was present?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you intend, when you said that, to tell an untruth?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was an untruth.
It was an untruth and you intended it to be an untruth?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did, but I do not mean it was an untruth that he said “Oo’er” and fell up against me.
It is an untruth in so far as it suggests that that was the first thing happened?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
Was that again to shield Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
At the time you made it then you knew that it was Bywaters who had done it?
EDITH THOMPSON: At the time I made this statement?
To the police – you knew that it was Bywaters who had done it?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did. I do not know what you mean by “done it.” I did not know then that anything was actually done. When I say I knew it was Bywaters, I recognised his coat and his hat going away.
Then you left out the truth in order to shield Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, that is so.
You knew if you told the truth Bywaters would be suspected?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Is it the truth as set out in your short statement which I think you have in front of you: “I was dazed for a moment. When I recovered I saw my husband scuffling with a man.” Is that the truth?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is.
Then did you watch your husband and Bywaters scuffling together?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not watch them; I saw them.
You saw them?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes. When I say “scuffling” I saw my husband swaying, moving about.
And the man there with him?
EDITH THOMPSON: There was somebody with him, yes, they were some distance ahead of me.
At any rate, although they were some distance ahead of you the two were in contest or pushing?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
Or fighting?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
Did you see them fighting?
EDITH THOMPSON: Scuffling, that is my explanation of moving about.
By MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Did you see either of them strike a blow?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was dark; I could not.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: All you saw was the two figures there together. Was it all over in a moment?
EDITH THOMPSON: As far as I can recollect.
Then it would not be right to say that you watched them?
EDITH THOMPSON: Oh, I did not.
You mean you saw the two men together and it was over?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Your next sentence is: “The man who I know as Freddy Bywaters was running away. He was wearing a blue overcoat and a grey hat. I knew it was him although I did not see his face.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You are now coming to the last statement?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, my Lord, Exhibit 4. You say: “He was wearing a blue overcoat and a grey hat. I knew it was him although I did not see his face”. Mrs Thompson, do you mean by that that you recognised this man whom you only saw at a distance in the dark in front of you – that you only recognised him by his overcoat and his hat?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did, by his back.
Do you really suggest that?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do.
Did you not know at the beginning as soon as something happened that it was Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had no idea.
You had no idea about it all when you made your verbal statemen to the police?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: There is her statement to the Doctor, she said somebody had flitted by.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: My Lord reminds me you made a statement to the doctor.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: It was to Miss Pittard and Mr Cleveley.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Did you make some such remarks to somebody that somebody had flitted by?
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “Someone flew past and when I went to speak to my husband.” “Someone flew past” was the expression, and Cleveley’s words were “someone flew past and he fell down.”
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: You notice what those two witnesses both say. Supposing they are correctly repeating what you said to them is that a correct impression that “somebody flew past”?
EDITH THOMPSON: I have no recollection of saying that. I was in a dazed condition.
Is that a correct impression on your mind that someone flew past?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
All you say is that when you recovered your senses and saw someone in front of you you knew it was Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did when he started to move away.
Had you any doubt when you were asked by the police about it that it was Bywaters who was there and who was the man?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, I had not.
May I take it that when you made the long statement, exhibit 3, which you have before you, in which you told my learned friend you said nothing about Bywaters, that you left out Bywaters’ name in order to shield him?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did so.
Did you also say this in the statement, you will see it there about 10 lines down, “I have always been on affectionate terms with my husband”?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot say that I actually said that. The statement was made as question and answer.
I think it was read over to you and you signed it?
EDITH THOMPSON: It might have been, yes.
At any rate, is the statement true or untrue?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is untrue.
Then if you left Bywaters out of that statement in order to shield him were you afraid that if you brought his name into it he would be suspected?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was not afraid of anything. I left it out undoubtedly .
Why? – to shield him? What were you afraid of if you did not know your husband had been stabbed?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was not afraid of anything. I was not —-
What were you going to shield him from?
EDITH THOMPSON: To have his name brought into it.
Were you not going to shield him from a charge of having murdered your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not know my husband was murdered.
That is what I am asking you. Did not you know your husband had been assaulted and murdered?
EDITH THOMPSON: The Inspector told me it but I did not realise even at that time that he was dead.
Inspector Hall had told you then your husband was dead?
EDITH THOMPSON: He had.
Then were you not attempting to shield Bywaters from a charge of having murdered your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Will you repeat that question?
Were you not, when you told those untruths and left out Bywaters, were you not attempting to shield him from a charge of having murdered your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not even know my husband had been murdered – when I say I did not know, I did not realise it.
I will ask you again, what were you attempting to shield Bywaters from?
EDITH THOMPSON: From being connected with me – his name being brought into anything.
Now, Mrs Thompson, is not it the fact that you knew that Bywaters was going to do something on this evening and that these two false statements were an attempt to prevent the police getting wind of it?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is not so.
Now I will go back to the early stages of your relationship with Bywaters. Do you agree with me that it was in June of 1921 that you first fell in love with Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, I did not.
Do you put it also in November? – September I said.
EDITH THOMPSON: In September?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do.
Do you remember the letter Exhibit 63, page 140, of the 28th August, 1922 where you say: “14 months have now gone by, it is so terribly long; neither you nor I thought we should have to wait all that long time”. Does that not satisfy you Mrs Thompson that you and Bywaters declared love to each other in June, 1921?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not at all.
You deny that?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
And from that time in June you wrote to him in the terms of a lover?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not hear that.
Do you deny that after June, 1921, you addressed him as your lover? When did you first begin to address him as your lover?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is just what you mean by “your lover.”
The terms in which a woman does not write to any man except her husband.
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot remember.
Did you from the first time you realised you were in love with Bywaters take an aversion to your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: For the first time, did you say?
Did you ever take an aversion to your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Can you tell me the date?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think it was in 1918.
Then both before and after you and Bywaters fell in love with each other you hated – is that too strong a word – your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is too strong.
Did your aversion to him become greater when you fell in love with Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think not.
Were you happy with him after you fell in love with Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I never was happy with him.
Did you behave to him as if you were happy?
EDITH THOMPSON: On occasions, yes.
Did your husband repeatedly ask you if you were happy?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did.
And did you tell him you were happy?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Was that to deceive him?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was to satisfy him more than to deceive him.
Why did you want to satisfy a man whom you hated? Mrs Thompson, let me pass over it as quickly as I can, although I must ask you some questions. You, at any rate, told your husband when he asked you that you were happy with him. Did you seriously at that time intend to leave your husband or to give him cause for divorce?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Did you ever tell him you had given him cause for divorce?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
When, for the first time?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot remember.
Were you afraid your husband would find out anything between you and Bywaters? – What do you mean by “anything”?
I will ask the question in that form first of all. Were you frightened your husband would find out anything between you and Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: Except that we were meeting and he might come and prevent us meeting.
But if you had told your husband that you had given him ground for divorce what were you afraid of beyond that?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was afraid of my husband making scenes; coming to my place of business and making scenes as he had threatened.
Mrs Thompson, you had told your husband that you had been unfaithful to him, or would be unfaithful to him and give him grounds for divorce?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Had he made scenes at your business when you told him that?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, he had not; he had threatened to do so.
Then what was the risk you were running; the risk you so often mentioned to Bywaters? I will read you a passage, lest I may seem to catch you, in your letter as late as 4th July, page 83, exhibit 26: “Why arn’t you sending me something, I wanted you to, you never do what I ask you darlint, you still have your own way always. If I don’t mind the risk why should you?” What risk, what risk, Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: I have not found it yet.
The third paragraph on page 83.
EDITH THOMPSON: That was the risk of Mr Bywaters sending me something instead of bringing something.
Why was that a risk?
EDITH THOMPSON: Well, it would be a risk for me to receive anything.
Not a risk to receive a letter.
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not say a letter.
What was it?
EDITH THOMPSON: Whatever Mr Bywaters suggested.
Why should you think there was a risk in his sending you something?
EDITH THOMPSON: There was a risk.
What was the risk, will you explain that?
EDITH THOMPSON:I did not know that I should personally receive it.
Why should there be a risk in a friend or even a lover sending you a letter or a present?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not say it was a letter.
What was it?
EDITH THOMPSON: Something Mr Bywaters suggested.
Did he suggest it was a dangerous thing?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
Why did you think it was a dangerous thing?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not think it was a dangerous thing.
Why did you think there was a risk?
EDITH THOMPSON: There was a risk to anything he sent me that did not come to my hands first.
Did you think because somebody would think there was a liaison going on between you and him?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, only you would not like anything private being opened by somebody previous to yourself.
EDITH THOMPSON: You were afraid somebody might have thought there were improper relations between you and him. Is that what you are referring to?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
I understand you did not mind your husband knowing you and Mr Bywaters were lovers?
EDITH THOMPSON: We wanted him to realise it.
The more it came to the knowledge of your husband the more likely you were to achieve your purpose of divorce or separation; is not that the fact?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, that is not so. The more it came to his knowledge the more he would refuse to give it me; he had told me that.
To come to this passage, you were asking Bywaters to send something which he had said, according to you, he was going to bring?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
What was it?
EDITH THOMPSON: I have no idea.
Have you no idea?
EDITH THOMPSON: Except what he told me.
What did he tell you?
EDITH THOMPSON: He would bring me something.
Did he not say what the something was?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did not mention anything, no.
What did he lead you to think it was?
EDITH THOMPSON: That it was something for me to give my husband.
With a view to poisoning your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: That was not the idea; that was not what I expected.
Something to give your husband that would hurt your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: To make him ill.
And it was a risk for your lover to send, and for you to receive, something of that sort; it was a risk?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was a risk for him to send me anything he did not know came to my hands first.
And a special risk to send you something to make your husband ill; you appreciate that?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, I suppose it was.
You were urging Bywaters to send it instead of bringing it?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
Was it in order that it might be used more quickly?
EDITH THOMPSON: I wrote that in order to make him think I was willing to do anything he might suggest, to enable me to retain his affections.
Mrs Thompson, is that quite a frank explanation of this urging him to send instead of bringing?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is absolutely. I wanted him to think I was eager to help him.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Eager to do what?
EDITH THOMPSON: Eager to help him in doing anything he suggested.
That does not answer the question you know.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Which he suggested giving your husband something to hurt him?
EDITH THOMPSON: He had given me something.
Given you something to give your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
Did the suggestion then come from Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: It did.
Did the suggestion come in a letter or in a conversation?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot remember.
Did you welcome it when it came?
EDITH THOMPSON: I read it.
What?
EDITH THOMPSON: I read it and I studied it.
Did you welcome the suggestion that something should be given to your husband to make him ill?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not.
Did you object to it?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was astonished about it.
Did you object to it?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did at the time.
And although you objected to it you urged Bywaters to send it more quickly than he intended ?
EDITH THOMPSON: I objected at the time; afterwards I acquiesced.
And from the time you acquiesced did you do all you could to assist Bywaters to find something which would make your husband ill?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not.
Did you try to prevent him from finding something to make your husband ill?
EDITH THOMPSON: I could not prevent him; he was not in England.
Did you try?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do not see how I could have tried.
Did you discourage him?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did at first.
And afterwards did you encourage him?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
What is the meaning of the injunction on page 35, exhibit 17, to him, a letter of the 1st April “Not to keep this piece” – did not he keep this piece?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot remember now.
Shall I help you to remember, if you read the next passage?
EDITH THOMPSON: It may not have referred to that piece, may it?
Let us have the original (handed). You see it is written at the top of the new sheet, of the new page?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is.
Did you intend Bywaters not to keep that piece of paper?
EDITH THOMPSON: A piece of paper?
That piece of paper?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
“Do not keep this piece”.
EDITH THOMPSON: I think you will see there has been something attached to that.
Attached to that piece of paper?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Well. I must leave the jury to judge of that?
EDITH THOMPSON: There are distinctly two pin marks there.
You dispute my suggestion to you “Do not keep this piece” as referring to the piece on which the following is written?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do.
Look at the next paragraph. It is about giving your husband something bitter, and I think you told your learned Counsel that was an imaginary incident?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Do you mean that you imagined it or that your husband did?
EDITH THOMPSON: I imagined it.
Do you mean you invented the incident altogether for Bywaters’ information?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did .
Can you tell me what the object of that was?
EDITH THOMPSON: Still to make him think I had done what he suggested.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Had done what; given your husband something?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Was it with the same object that you wrote the paragraph lower down “Don’t tell Dan.” You say “What I mean is, don’t let him be suspicious of you regarding that – because if we were successful in the action” —
does that refer to the proposal that Bywaters had made that you should make your husband ill?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think not.
What do you think it refers to?
EDITH THOMPSON: The action of my going away to live with him, unmarried.
“I am going to try the glass again occasionally when it is safe. I have got an electric light globe this time”. When was it likely to be safe?
EDITH THOMPSON: There was no question of it being safe; I was not going to try it.
Why did you tell Bywaters you were going to try it when it was safe?
EDITH THOMPSON: Still to let him think I was willing to do what he wanted.
You are representing that this young man was seriously suggesting to you that you should poison and kill your husband?
I did not suggest it.
EDITH THOMPSON: I thought that was the suggestion?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not suggest that.
What was your suggestion?
EDITH THOMPSON: He said he would give him something.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Give him something in his food. You answered my question a little while ago it was to give him something to make him ill?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is what I surmised, that I should give him something so that when he had a heart attack he would not be able to resist it.
You are suggesting now that it was Bywaters who was suggesting that to you?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
And you did not do it?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, never.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Why were you urging Bywaters to do something if the suggestion really came from him? In your letter of the 10th February, page 18, exhibit 15, your first sentence is “You must do something this time”?
EDITH THOMPSON: Page what did you say?
Page 18.
EDITH THOMPSON: I was not referring to that at all. Where I say “You must do something this time” —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What page.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Page 20. Were you not referring to the same subject mater – “you must do something”, namely, “give me something for my husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was referring to him getting me something to do, a position of some sort abroad.
Let us see what the rest of the letter was. The fourth paragraph is the one that relates to the incident of your husband waking up and asking you for water as he was feeling ill. Was that a true incident?
EDITH THOMPSON: Absolutely true.
Why did you hunt for the prescription; was that to prevent a similar incident?
EDITH THOMPSON: Probably.
I do not want ‘probably’.
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not think it was wise for him to do those things.
Was your anxiety so that you should get hold of the prescription and avert the catastrophe of taking an overdose?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Do you mean you were frightened and worried by the incident? Do you mean you were really frightened in fact about your husband’s overdose?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was.
Then can you explain to me the meaning of the next sentence: “I told Avis about the incident, only I told her as if it frightened and worried me as I thought perhaps it might be useful at some future time that I had told somebody”. Was it true that you were frightened and worried, or was it acting?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, that was true.
You were frightened and worried?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was.
Why did you take special pains to tell Avis as if you were frightened and worried?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was worried and frightened and told my sister.
Why was it likely to be useful to pretend that you were frightened and worried?
EDITH THOMPSON: If anything had happened to my husband it would have been much better for somebody else to know besides myself.
And you thought it would have been much better for you if you poisoned your husband if you professed anxiety to Avis previously?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had no intention of ever poisoning my husband.
The next paragraph: “What do you think, darlint, his sister Maggie came in last night and he told her – (I suppose “he” is your husband?) – “and he told her, so now there are two witnesses, although I wish he hadn’t told her but left me to do it”. Now that is to say you wanted again to create the impression that you were frightened by your husband’s attacks?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not want to create the impression; I was frightened.
“It would be so easy darlint if I had known; I hope I shall”. What would be easy?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was asking or saying it would be better if I had things as Mr Bywaters suggested I should have.
What would be easy Mrs Thompson?
EDITH THOMPSON: To administer them as he suggested.
“I do hope I shall.”
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Was that acting or was that real?
EDITH THOMPSON: That was acting for him.
You were acting to Bywaters that you wished to destroy your husband’s life?
EDITH THOMPSON: I was.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: One moment, I do not want to be mistaken. Did I take you down rightly as saying “I wanted him to think I was willing to take my husband’s life”?
EDITH THOMPSON: I wanted him to think I was willing to do what he suggested.
That is to take your husband’s life?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not necessarily.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL To injure your husband at any rate?
EDITH THOMPSON: To make him ill.
What was the object of making him ill?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had not discussed the special object.
What was in your heart; what was the object of making him ill, so that he should not recover from his heart attacks?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, that was certainly the impression, yes.
And then had that been accomplished your way with Bywaters would be clear. Mrs Thompson I must press you about —
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You will be sometime yet?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, I will be sometime.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: We can finish the evidence tomorrow, cannot we?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: And some speech if you can. I do not want to sit inordinately late tomorrow. I think it is clear the case cannot be finished tomorrow, but I will sit to the same time.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If your Lordship pleases.
(Adjourned till tomorrow morning at 10.30, bailiffs being sworn to take charge of the Jury).
FOURTH DAY
[SATURDAY 9TH DECEMBER 1922]
MRS EDITH JESSIE THOMPSON (Prisoner) Recalled.
Cross-examination continued by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I will try to finish shortly what I have to ask you, Mrs Thompson. Would you be good enough to turn to page 52 of the correspondence, Exhibit 20, the letter of 14th March?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Will you look at the bottom of page 52: “The mail came in 12 noon, and I thought I would be able to talk to you after then – but I don’t think I can. Will you do all the thinking and planning for me darlint – for this thing – be ready with every little detail when I see you – because you know more about this thing than I, and I am relying on you for all plans and instructions – only just the act I’m not. I’m wanting that man to lean on now darlint, and I shall lean hard – so be prepared.” Bearing that passage in mind, you told me yesterday evening that you were anxious to let Mr Bywaters know that you were prepared to do anything for him? Do you remember telling me that?–
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
And that he was writing to you or you thought he was writing to you, suggesting harming your husband – is that right?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
And you were writing back to him letting him think that you agreed with him. When you say in the letter: “Will you do all the thinking and planning for me darlint – for this thing,” you meant the poisoning which Mr Bywaters had suggested?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not.
What was “this thing”?
EDITH THOMPSON: The thing I referred to was my going away with him.
“Be ready with ever little detail when I see you – because you know more about this thing than I, and I am relying on you for all plans and instructions – only just the act I’m not”. Do you say that “the act” there means leaving your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: “The act” meant actually going with him. I wanted him to make the arrangements regarding a passage and all the details that would be entailed in my leaving England.
At any rate, that does not of course mean suicide?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, it does not mean that. It means what I have just told you.
You say it means something to do with leaving your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Then if you will turn to the next page, page 53, at the bottom you say: “Why not go to 231 darlint?” – that is your old home?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is my mother’s house.
“I think you ought to go as usual, it would be suspicious later if you stopped away without a reason known to them and there is not a reason is there?” Why would it be suspicious if he stayed away from your mother’s house?
EDITH THOMPSON: Because he was in the habit of going there when he came home.
But if you were to leave your husband, discovery would be inevitable?
EDITH THOMPSON: Discovery not necessarily with him, though – to leave my husband with him.
Do you mean you were going to leave your husband and to try and keep it from your people and everybody else that you had run away with Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: That was my intention; that is what I thought about.
Now, the next sentence but one: “Darlint, about making money– yes we must somehow, and what does it matter how – when we have accomplished that one thing.” What was “that one thing”?
EDITH THOMPSON: To get away from England.
At any rate, whatever those two passages mean – whether they mean, as you say, the preliminary to a divorce or to running away from your husband, or whether they mean, as I suggest to you, poisoning your husband – it had been the subject of conversation between you and Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: What had been the subject of conversation between us?
“That one thing” whatever “that one thing” means
EDITH THOMPSON: The one thing was my leaving England – always.
You and Bywaters had discussed this “one thing”, whatever it means?
EDITH THOMPSON: My leaving England, yes.
You agree that you and he had discussed this “one thing”?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
That letter was written on 14th March to Plymouth. Perhaps you will take it from me, and your learned Counsel can check it, that Bywaters arrived in England on 17th March?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Do you remember whether you discussed with him when he came the same thing that that letter refers to?
EDITH THOMPSON: I probably did; it was the subject of discussion always.
When he was at home did that incident happen which you may remember you speak of as “the Sunday morning escapade” on page 55 in your letter of the 1st April written to Bywaters at Bombay? He had left this country, if I may remind you, on the 31st March. While he was at home between the 17th and the 31st March did that incident happen when your husband spoke of tea tasting bitter? –
EDITH THOMPSON: My husband never spoke of tea tasting bitter.
Do you adhere to your statement that this is an invention in this paragraph?
EDITH THOMPSON: Absolutely.
Do you notice that you put it in inverted commas “the circumstances of my ‘Sunday morning escapade’”?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do.
Why did you put those words in inverted commas if Bywaters did not know what it meant?
EDITH THOMPSON: Well, that is what I called it – that is why I used inverted commas.
EDITH THOMPSON: Were you not referring in that paragraph to something which you and Bywaters had discussed and which had happened while he was at home?
EDITH THOMPSON: Nothing had happened.
At the end of the paragraph you say: “Now I think whatever else I try it in again will still taste bitter – he will recognise it and be more suspicious still and if the quantity is still not successful – it will injure any chance I may have of trying when you come home”. Does that mean trying to poison your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is what I wanted him to infer.
You were wanting him to entertain the hope that when he next came home you would try again to poison your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I wanted to convey that impression to his mind by the letter, although I never intended to do such a thing.
Is it the fact then that, whether that incident is an actual incident or not, what you were speaking of in that paragraph as something you were going to try had been discussed between you and him when you were together?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
If you would turn to page 44, Exhibit 19, you will see this sentence at the bottom: “You said it was enough for an elephant. Perhaps it was. But you don’t allow for the taste making only a small quantity to be taken. It sounded like a reproach; was it meant to be?” Do you see that?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Had he in his letter to which that was an answer again referred to this plan of poisoning your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: He probably had. That was in answer to his question.
Had he also told you that you must be very careful in anything you did not to leave any traces – any finger marks – on the boxes?
EDITH THOMPSON: He did, yes.
Had he also written to you again about the bitter taste? It is in a paragraph on page 15: “now your letter tells me about the bitter taste again”. That sentence speaks for itself. Then lower down: “Our Boy had to have his thumb operated on because he had a piece of glass in it that’s what made me try that method again – but I suppose as you say he is not normal.” Was not this proposal of poisoning your husband mentioned in every letter that Bywaters wrote you?
EDITH THOMPSON: I think not.
In many letters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I will not say how many; I do not remember.
In some?
EDITH THOMPSON: Probably.
Was it not also mentioned between you and him whenever he came back to England?
EDITH THOMPSON: What was mentioned?
This proposal to poison your husband.
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot say that for certain; I do not remember.
Do you not ever remember that he spoke about it to you?
EDITH THOMPSON: Perhaps on one occasion – you said on every occasion.
On several occasions?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot say how many.
Q, Very well, I will not press you on that. In addition to replying to his suggestions, was it you who first thought of mentioning the book ‘Bella Donna” to him?
EDITH THOMPSON: Will you repeat that question?
Was it you who first mentioned the book “Bella Donna” to Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had read that book “Bella Donna”.
You were the first to mention it in the correspondence. Were you the first to mention it to him?
EDITH THOMPSON: We had discussed books we were going to read and had read. I cannot say who mentioned it first.
You at any rate had read the book “Bella DonnaI”/
EDITH THOMPSON: I had.
Is the story “Bella Donna” about a woman who married her husband and went out to Egypt?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
When they were going out to Egypt on the ship, did they meet a man called Baroudi?
EDITH THOMPSON: They did.
Did the woman, Mrs Chepstow, in that story feel attracted by the comfort and the pleasures that Baroudi could give her?
EDITH THOMPSON: I believe she did.
Did she arrange a plot to poison her husband by slow doses in order that she might get away to Baroudi?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot say if she arranged it. There was a plot right at the end of the book.
There is a plot, which is really the plot of the story, to poison her husband, without anybody finding out what she was doing?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is a matter of opinion whether that is absolutely the plot, is it not?
Anyway, that is an important incident in the book?
EDITH THOMPSON: At the end, yes.
Did she almost accomplish that plot or design of poisoning her husband until it was discovered at the end by an old friend?
EDITH THOMPSON: I really cannot remember.
At any rate, you do remember that it was an important incident in the book that Mrs Chepstow, should get rid of her husband so that she might go to another man?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do not know if it mentions that she should get rid of him to go to another man. I do not remember that being mentioned in the book.
Then you write this extract from “Bella Donna”: “‘It must be remembered that digitalin is a cumulative poison, and that the same dose harmless if taken once, yet frequently repeated, becomes deadly”.
EDITH THOMPSON: At what page is that?
It is page 62, Exhibit 32, your letter of the 18th May. After that quotation you say “The above passage I’ve just come across in a book I am reading, “Bella Donna” by Robert Hichens. Is it any use?” You agree with me that that was a suggestion which you thought of to make to Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I wanted him to think by that that I was still agreeing to fall in with the plan which he suggested.
When were you going to undeceive Bywaters and let him realise that you were not anxious to poison your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I never was anxious to poison my husband.
When were you going to undeceive Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I never studied it — I never thought about it.
Is it the fact that you went on in what you can say is this deception up to October 2nd deceiving Bywaters into thinking that you were prepared to help him to poison your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Up to what date did you say?
Up to October 2nd?
EDITH THOMPSON: Why do you say that date?
Because that was a day when Bywaters was home. I will not say October 2nd. I will take it more generally: did you deceive Bywaters right up to his last visit to England?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had never any intention whatever of poisoning my husband.
I will take that from you for the moment. What I was asking you was this: you told me that you deceived Bywaters because you wanted to keep his love?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
You deceived him into thinking that you wanted to poison your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Did you continue that deception right up to his visit to England a few days before the murder?
EDITH THOMPSON: Did I continue the deception?
Yes?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had never told him.
Did you continue to let him think that you were prepared to poison your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I never mentioned the subject. I suppose he thought I was still wanting to do so.
Will you turn to page 151, your letter of October 2nd — the last sentence: “Don’t forget what we talked about in the Tea Room, I’ll still risk and try if you will”. Was that in connection with the same matter, the idea of poisoning your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, that was not. What we talked of in the tea-room was getting me a position abroad.
I have not asked you yet about the sentence immediately above that sentence I have just read to you. You say “He’s still well”. Is the “he” your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
Who was that?
EDITH THOMPSON: That refers to a bronze monkey I have.
“He’s going to gaze all day long at you in your temporary home – after Wednesday”. Wednesday was 4th October?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, the temporary home was a sketch of the ship, the “Morea” which I was having framed.
EDITH THOMPSON: Thursday, the 5th October, was the day when Bywaters’ leave ended?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do not know. “After Wednesday” meant when I had received the sketch of the “Morea” framed. It was to be finished on the Wednesday.
At any rate I suggest to you that your statement to him in your letter of the 2nd October just towards the end “I’ll still risk and try if you will” referred to the same matter which you had mentioned so often in the letters — the risk of using poison or force to your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had never mentioned force to my husband.
No, but you had mentioned it to Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: Mentioned what?
Using force — something to hurt your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: I never mentioned the word “force.”
Did you not mention the subject to Bywaters?
EDITH THOMPSON: I do not understand what you mean.
Did you never mention in conversation with Bywaters at these Tea Room visits, on September 29th and October 2nd and October 3rd the proposal to hurt your husband or to poison him?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had not done so.
Did Bywaters never refer to all these letters that had passed between you and him containing that proposal?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot say that he did.
Can you say that he did not?
EDITH THOMPSON: He probably did not — we did not discuss the letters when he was at home.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is all I have to ask.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Do you cross-examine, Mr Whiteley?
MR CECIL WHITELEY: No, my Lord, I ask no question.
Mr JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You know you have a right to cross- examine.
MR CECIL WHITELEY: Yes, my Lord.
RE-EXAMINED BY SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT
I will deal with this last matter that you have been asked about first. “He’s still well — he’s going to gaze all day long at you in your temporary home — after Wednesday”. You say that means the little bronze money which you had?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes
Is that the monkey which is referred to, as I think the Jury will know, in another letter?
EDITH THOMPSON: It is.
In fact in several letters?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes. It stands on my desk.
I was just going to ask you, did that little bronze monkey stands upon your desk?
EDITH THOMPSON: It did.
You say the reference to a temporary home means a picture of the ship which was his temporary home?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so, he had given me that, and I had taken it to have it framed.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “He’s still well” means the monkey?
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, my Lord. “He’s still well – he’s going to gaze all day long at you in your temporary home” – that is the picture of the ship?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Was that picture when it was framed going to stand upon your desk where the monkey was?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
You have been asked some questions about the book by Robert Hichens’ “Bella Donna.” Was Baroudi in that book a wealthy man or a poor man?
EDITH THOMPSON: A very wealthy man.
Was Nigel, the husband of “Bella Donna” Nigel a wealthy man, or a poor man?
EDITH THOMPSON: I believe he was a wealthy man.
It has been suggested to you, and I am not complaining of it at all, that the plot of that book was that Bella Donna should leave he husband for the purpose of going to Baroudi, this wealthy man.
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, it has been suggested.
As far as you know, had Bywaters any money outside his pay?
EDITH THOMPSON: None at all.
Did you know how much that was?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had a rough idea
What was your rough idea?
EDITH THOMPSON: About £200 a year, I think.
Was your husband a better-off man than that?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not very much better.
How much did he get a week?
EDITH THOMPSON: £6 I believe.
Did you support yourself?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Entirely?
EDITH THOMPSON: Absolutely.
If you had run away with Bywaters would you have been able to remain at Carlton & Prior’s or not?
EDITH THOMPSON: If I had what?
If you had run away with Bywaters was it your intention to get employment elsewhere?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
You had been for many years with Carlton & Prior?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
Was your remuneration there a substantial one?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
And that you would give up?
EDITH THOMPSON: I would.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I think it was mentioned as £6 a week?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes, and bonuses.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: That being the position of you and Bywaters and your husband as compared with Belladonna, Baroudi and Mrs Chepstow’s husband, I again put to you your description on page 115 of the woman Bella Donna. It is at the bottom of the page. Is this your true view as written to Bywaters of that woman Belladonna: “She doesn’t seem a woman to me – she seems abnormal – a monster utterly selfish and self-loving.” Is that your true idea of that woman?
EDITH THOMPSON: Absolutely.
So much for Belladonna. You have been asked some questions as to a paragraph which appears in Exhibit 20 on page 55. Do you see there in the beginning of the last paragraph: “Why not go to 231 darlint? I think you ought to go as usual, it would be suspicious later if you stopped away without a reason known to them and there is not a reason is there?” As far as you knew, had your parents or family any suspicion that you were in love with Bywaters or he with you?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not as far as I knew.
Until you finally left with him, if you ever did run away with him, did you or did you not want your parents to know of this affection or this love between you?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not want them to know.
So in this letter you are telling him to keep visiting as “it would be suspicious later if you stopped away without a reason known to them?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
You were also asked some questions about a paragraph appearing on page 18. You see the long paragraph in the middle of that page referring to an illness of your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
You were asked whether or not you were genuinely frightened and worried about your husband’s illness?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
And you said that you were. Apropos of that I want to ask you a question about the aromatic tincture of opium. Who was who found the bottle of aromatic tincture of opium?
EDITH THOMPSON: My sister.
Were you present when that was destroyed?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: She said yesterday that she did not know what had become of the bottle.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: The contents were destroyed. I am going to call the sister, my lord. (To Witness): Was it with your concurrence that that was destroyed?
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
From 9th June until the 23rd September of this year Bywaters was away – you may accept those dates from me. During that time were you getting as many letters from him as previously?
EDITH THOMPSON: No, I was not.
Getting fewer letters from him during that period, what did you think from that?
EDITH THOMPSON: I thought he was gradually drifting away from me.
Did you still love him very much?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did.
Where were the letters which you did receive from Bywaters during the whole of this period – when I say “the whole of this period” I mean right away from September, 1921 – written to? –
EDITH THOMPSON: To 168 Aldersgate Street, my place of business.
That is your place of business?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
For how long were they written there?
EDITH THOMPSON: I cannot remember the dates.
Abou how long?
EDITH THOMPSON: Right up till the beginning of the last voyage, I think.
Where else were they written to?
EDITH THOMPSON: The G.P.O.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: In your own name at the G.P.O?
EDITH THOMPSON: No.
In what name?
EDITH THOMPSON: In the name of Miss P. Fisher.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: Why did you not want them written to your oen address?
EDITH THOMPSON: Which address do you mean?
Your home address where your husband lived.
EDITH THOMPSON: Well, I did not want him to see them.
Whenever Bywaters’ name was mentioned or whenever your husband found that you had been meeting Bywaters what happened as far as he was concerned?
EDITH THOMPSON: There was usually a scene.
To prevent the risk of such a scene the letters were sent to these other places?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
Now one or two questions about the night of 3rd October and the early morning of the 4th. You told my learned friend that you were pushed aside and you think you fell down?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
When you fell down did you receive any injury that you found out afterwards?
EDITH THOMPSON: I had a large bump on the right-hand side of my head.
That would be the side where the wall was, where you were walking?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Have you any idea how long you were upon the ground or not?
EDITH THOMPSON: Not the faintest.
Then you told my learned friend that when you looked down the street some little distance you saw your husband scuffling with someone?
EDITH THOMPSON: That is so.
When you saw him scuffling with someone at that time did you recognise who the other person was or not?
EDITH THOMPSON: I did not.
Did you ever on that night see the face of the person who was scuffling with your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Never.
When was the first time upon that night that you saw something about that person who had been scuffling with your husband which made you think who it was?
EDITH THOMPSON: Would you repeat that question?
Where was the person who has been scuffling with your husband when you first saw something about him that made you think you knew who he was?
EDITH THOMPSON: He was going away.
After he had separated from your husband?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Going away from your husband and away from you?
EDITH THOMPSON: Yes.
Q, You have already said that it was the coat and hat that you recognise
EDITH THOMPSON: It was.
Had you any idea that night or early morning of the next day that your husband had been stabbed?
EDITH THOMPSON: None at all.
As far as you could from the moment you got up to your husband did you do everything you could for him?
EDITH THOMPSON: Everything I possibly could.
MISS AVIS ETHEL GRAYDON Sworn
EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
Is your name Avis Graydon?
AVIS GRAYDON: Avis Ethel Gradyon.
Do you live at 231, Shakespeare Crescent, Manor Park.
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes.
You live there with your parents?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes.
I first of all want to ask you about an incident of your finding a bottle at Mr and Mrs Thompson’s house. What date was that?
AVIS GRAYDON: It was Easter Monday of this year.
Was Mr Thompson at his house?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes.
Was Mrs Thompson there?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes.
During the day was Mr Thompson in his garden?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes.
Did something happen to him there – what was he doing?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes. We were knocking apart a grand piano case and he knocked his finger – his first finger.
Did he ask you to do something?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes.
What was that?
AVIS GRAYDON: He said: “Will you go up to my room to my medicine chest and get me a bottle of ‘Newskin’?”
Did you go?
AVIS GRAYDON: I did.
When you got up there did you something that attracted your attention?
AVIS GRAYDON: I did.
What was that?
AVIS GRAYDON: It was a large bottle of tincture of opium.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: In the chest?
AVIS GRAYDON: In the chest, my lord.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: Just look at Exhibit 6l (Same handed). Was it larger than that?
AVIS GRAYDON: Oh yes. It was a bottle this size (describing) – about half a pint.
What did you do with it?
AVIS GRAYDON: At that moment I did not touch it. I came downstairs with the ‘Newskin’. I went into the morning room and said to my sister, who was sitting by the fire: “There is a bottle of opium in Percy’s medicine chest. Nip up and get it”.
What happened then?
AVIS GRAYDON: I went out and put the ‘Newskin’ on my brother-in-law’s finger. He said “Take it back, the ‘Newskin’. I took it back and I found that the bottle of opium had gone. I came downstairs again and I said to my sister: “Have you taken that bottle of opium as I asked you?” She said “Yes.” I said: “Where is it?” She said: ‘On the side there – on the sideboard”.
What happened to it.
AVIS GRAYDON: I said: “I will do away with this, so there can be more trouble”. I took the bottle. I went outside to the scullery and poured the contents of the bottle down the drain, and the bottle I took into the morning room and put in the fire.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You poured the contents of the bottle down the scullery sink – is that it?
AVIS GRAYDON: That is quite so.
And what else?
AVIS GRAYDON: I put the bottle in the fire in the morning room.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I want to draw your attention to a letter which has been read. If you will listen carefully I will read to you the paragraph I want to ask you a question about. It is on page 75, Exhibit 24:
“I rang Avis yesterday and she said he came down there in a rage and told Dad everything – about all the rows we have ever had over you – but she did not mention he said anything about the first real one on August 1st – so I suppose he kept that back to suit his own ends. Dad said it was a disgraceful thing that you should come between husband and wife and I ought to be ashamed. Darlint, I told you this is how they would look at it – they do not understand it and they never will any of them. Dad was going to talk to me, Avis said – but I went down and nothing whatever was said by any of them. I told Avis I should tell them off if they said anything to me. I did not go whining to my people when he did things I didn’t approve of and I didn’t expect him to – but however nothing was said at all. Dad said to them: ‘What a scandal if it should get in the papers’. So evidently he suggested drastic measures to them.”
Is there any truth in that at all?
AVIS GRAYDON: There is none whatever.
Did it ever happen?
AVIS GRAYDON: It did not.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Let us make plain what you mean. Did you ever tell her anything like that?
SIR H. Curtis-Bennett: Did you ever tell her anything like that at all?
AVIS GRAYDON: I did not.
It neither happened not did you invent it?
AVIS GRAYDON: No.
You have seen the letter – you had the letter shown you before you came here – quite properly.
AVIS GRAYDON: No, I’ve not seen anything at all.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: As a matter of fact, she has not seen the letter, she has been told of it
My MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: (To the witness) It is quite proper that you should have seen or been told about it. It follows therefore that your sister invented the whole of this?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes; it is pure imagination on my sister’s part.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Do you remember the evening of October 3rd, that the night when Mr Thompson died.
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes.
We have been told – there is no dispute about thid – that Mr Bywaters was at your father and mother’s house that evening?
AVIS GRAYDON: That is quite correct.
Were you at home?
AVIS GRAYDON: I was.
About what times was it when he left?
AVIS GRAYDON: Mr Bywaters?
Yes?
AVIS GRAYDON: I should think it was somewhere in the region of ten to 11 o’clock.
How long had you known Mr Bywaters?
AVIS GRAYDON: Roughly about four years.
Before he left upon that evening was any arrangement at all made which related to you and the next day?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes.
What was it?
AVIS GRAYDON: He said to me, as I let him out of the door on the Tuesday night: “I will be down to take you to the Pictures tomorrow evening”.
Was that arrangement made by him the very last thing on leaving the house?
AVIS GRAYDON: As I let him out of the door.
Did you know at all what Mr and Mrs Thompson were going to do the next evening?
AVIS GRAYDON: Do you refer to the Wednesday?
Yes.
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes, I did.
Who had told you what they were going to do the next evening?
AVIS GRAYDON: My brother-in-law.
What were they going to do?
AVIS GRAYDON: My brother-in-law and my sister were meeting their maid from Cornwall at Paddington station at 5 o’clock on the Wednesday evening — Miss Ethel Vernon [White].
That is the maid who, as we know, did not in fact arrive.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That was not cross-examined to.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No (To the witness). The maid did in fact arrive the next night, did she not?
AVIS GRAYDON: Yes, she did.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No question.
MRS ETHEL JESSIE GRAYDON Sworn
EXAMINED BY SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT
What is your Christian name, Mrs Graydon?
MRS GRAYDON: Ethel Jessie.
Do you live at 231, Shakespeare Crescent, Manor Park?
MRS GRAYDON: Yes.
Mrs Thompson is your daughter?
MRS GRAYDON: Yes.
During the day of October 4th, were you with your daughter almost the whole day at the Police Station?
MRS GRAYDON: All the whole day.
Were you also with her on October 5th until she was charged?
MRS GRAYDON: Yes.
During that time did she complain to you of anything?
MRS GRAYDON: Yes.
What?
MRS GRAYDON: About a bump on her head.
Was the complaint made once or many times?
MRS GRAYDON: She spoke about it two or three times, because I asked her the question after she told me about it.
Did you examine he head?
MRS GRAYDON: I put my hand over the place where she told me it was, and I felt a bump there.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: That is the case for Mrs Thompson, my Lord
Closing Speech for the Prisoner Bywaters
MR CECIL WHITELEY [source = Notable British Trials 1923]: May it please your lordship; Members of the jury, the time has now arrived for me to perform the last part of the duty that has been assigned to me in presenting to you the Defence to this charge of wilful murder against Frederick Bywaters. Members of the jury, I do so with considerable and with deeply felt anxiety. That anxiety is not caused from any feeling, nor have I any doubt, that you and each one of you are determined to see that, so far as he is concerned, so far as the other prisoner is concerned, justice will be done. The anxiety arises rather from the unprecedented and extraordinary way in which the case has been presented by the Prosecution, so that you must have great difficulty, when you come to consider the whole of this case, in dealing with the evidence that the Prosecution has seen fit to present to you.
There is no dispute, and ever since the evening of 5th October there has been no dispute, that Percy Thompson met his death owing to a blow inflicted on him by Frederick Bywaters. That being the case, and there having been the evidence with regard to the event on that night, it is one of those cases which, if brought under ordinary circumstances, would have been left to the hands of the junior counsel for the Prosecution, my learned friend, Mr Roland Oliver. The case is straight and simple. The facts of the death proved, the whole question for the jury would have been whether they were justified from those facts in finding a verdict of wilful murder, or of manslaughter, or some other verdict. But no. In this case the Prosecution has seen fit to introduce, so far as Bywaters is concerned, a mass of evidence which I submit is really irrelevant.
Is it the case for the Prosecution here to-day that Mrs Thompson administered poison to her husband? Is it the case for the Prosecution that Mrs Thompson administered broken glass to her husband? Is it the case for the Prosecution that Mrs Thompson had incited Frederick Bywaters to murder her husband? If so, why not try those issues? Why not bring such evidence as they have on those issues and let there be a straightforward issue between the Crown and Mrs Thompson? Perhaps you will be surprised to hear that in this Court to-day there was another indictment in which charges were made against Mrs Thompson, one of the counts including a charge of conspiring with Bywaters to murder her husband, and the other charging her with the particular offence. Having regard to the evidence that you have heard and the Home Office report that must have been in the hands of the Prosecution when the indictment was brought forward, one can perhaps understand why those two charges were not entered into against Mrs Thompson. I ask, why were not those counts proceeded with? The reason is that the Court of Appeal have to decide an issue of life or death, and in a case so serious as murder their attention would be drawn to the evidence. Why was it done? In order to convict Frederick Bywaters of murder the Prosecution had to satisfy the jury that when that blow was struck Bywaters had an intent to kill, an intent preceding the act. This presumption is rebutted by the facts before you. In this case what the Prosecution have done is this – having found their difficulty in proving those counts in the other indictment, they decided to introduce her into this indictment and charge her as a principal in the alleged murder committed by Frederick Bywaters, and in order to induce you to convict her they decided to bring the whole of that evidence, but they considered that would be useless to them until they could shew she was acting in concert with Bywaters. The Court of Criminal Appeal have decided that a case of murder is so serious that the attention of the jury should be drawn to that fact, and that fact alone. What a farce! In spite of the decision of the Prosecution regarding those counts the Prosecution are willing to wound and yet afraid to strike. Knowing what their case was against Mrs Thompson, they put in a mass of correspondence which is entirely irrelevant to the issue, and in that way they associate Mrs Thompson with the other prisoner. They have tried, by introducing evidence relating, as I submit, to counts in the other indictment, to make her equally guilty of the death of Thompson, but they cannot do that unless they satisfy you that Bywaters was acting in concert with her. The case for the Prosecution, so far as she is concerned, is that she was present when the alleged murder took place, and that she aided, abetted, and assisted Bywaters in that murder, and that she counselled, procured, and commanded him to commit it. Of course, if they succeed in satisfying you, members of the jury, on evidence that you can accept in law, then she is equally responsible for the murder.
Members of the jury, the tragedy in this case, the poignant tragedy so far as Bywaters is concerned, is that there is sitting next to him in that box one who is charged jointly with him, one who is dearer to him than his own life. One would have thought that the position of an accused man on a charge of murder was quite difficult enough without it being thought necessary in the interests of public justice that at the same time of his trial the woman should have been charged with him. You may have noticed that I asked no question of Mrs Thompson, although I was entitled to do so. Why did I not? For this simple reason: my instructions, and those given to my learned friend, were that neither by word nor deed, in conducting this case on behalf of this man, should a word be said by us, or any action taken by us, which would in any way hamper the Defence of Mrs Thompson. That was the position when Bywaters was called into the witness-box. That being the state of his mind, it was an anxiety that nothing he should say should in any way hurt Mrs Thompson. Yet he had to go through the torture of being cross-examined, the whole object being, in some way or other, to get evidence to connect these two together before the fatal evening of 3rd October. Happily for Mrs Thompson, and it is a matter of satisfaction to Bywaters, she is in the able hands of my learned friend, Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett. I hope that nothing I say will hamper him in the way he is putting her case before you.
In my submission to you, the first, and perhaps the most important, question you have to decide is this – was there or was there not any agreement between Mrs Thompson and Frederick Bywaters to murder Percy Thompson on the evening of 3rd October? Was it a preconcerted meeting, or was it not? I shall next ask you to try to eliminate from your minds altogether the facts and the evidence as to what happened that evening. The Prosecution are asking you to say that before these events there was a cruel conspiracy between these two persons for which they could have been prosecuted in this Court. What evidence is there of that agreement and conspiracy? What evidence is there that Bywaters was a party to any such agreement?
Just consider the difference between the personalities of these two people sitting in the box. On the one hand you have Mrs Thompson, a woman who, at the time that she met Bywaters in the Isle of Wight, last June, had lieen married for no less than seven years – an emotional, hysterical woman, a woman with a vivid imagination, and one who for some years had been living very unhappily with her husband. She becomes infatuated with a young man no less than eight years her junior. On the other hand you have a young man who at that time was nineteen years old, on the threshold of a life that had every prospect of being successful. These two are drawn together. This man – this boy – full of life, falls in love with the woman. My learned friend, the Solicitor- General, made use of the expression that there was a guilty passion between these two persons. This is not a Court of morals, and whatever view may be taken of the relationship between them from a sexual point of view is absolutely irrelevant. These two persons fall in love and declare their love with one another. On the one hand there is a married woman, whose husband is unwilling to divorce her, and on the other hand a young man whose duty takes him to sea the greater part of the year. I do not suppose it will be suggested that when he went away on 9th September, or again on 11th November, or in June, there was any conspiracy between the two. I submit that the letters between February and March do not suggest that Bywaters was lending himself to any suggestion that Mrs Thompson’s husband should be injured in any way, or poisoned. Fortunately, two of Bywaters’ letters have been pre- served, and you will assume that these letters are typical of those he had already written to Mrs Thompson. The Prosecution may argue that the destroying of the letters goes in their favour, but you should remember that the destroying of the letters was the only thing that the woman would do in the circumstances – she destroyed them because she did not want her husband to see them. I challenge the Prosecution to shew that in any of his letters Bywaters incited Mrs Thompson to any act against her husband.
Bywaters saw Mrs Thompson constantly when at home, and he saw Mr Thompson twice. But, when he realised that it was hopeless, and that there was no chance of Mrs Thompson having a separation from her husband, the Prosecution cannot suggest, that he ever did anything else. The Prosecution are bound to prove that, when this boy was receiving these letters he was making himself a party to what was contained in them. How have they attempted to do it? By putting in these hysterical, emotional letters of Mrs Thompson, written under all sorts of circumstances. I ask you to distinguish in the letters fact from fiction. Mrs Thompson wanted to retain the affection of Bywaters. Her object in writing the letters was to shew to Bywaters, who might be going out of her life at any moment, that her affection for him was so great, her love for him so deep, that there was nothing she would stop at in order to free herself and join him. If that be the view that you take, is it unreasonable to suppose that that was the view which Bywaters also took? I ask you to try, if you can, to take out of those letters what is fact and what is fiction, what is imaginary and what is real. The Prosecution must satisfy you that Bywaters was agreeing to it all. We now know that although there have been only thirty-two letters produced, there were in fact found in the possession of Bywaters no fewer than sixty-five. As I say, the letters simply conveyed to Bywaters the impression that Mrs Thompson was extremely anxious to retain his affection. Where is the evidence that Bywaters really entered into any conspiracy? What did Bywaters do when he came home? Those letters had been written for some weeks, but when he returned he did nothing.He took Mrs Thompson out, as he had done on former occasions.He was on friendly terms with the family of Mrs Thompson. He shewed no hostility or violence towards Mrs Thompson’s husband. Bywaters had been away from this country after 13th June for a period of three months, and it was fully four months since he received these letters upon which the Prosecution rely. Far from there being any conspiracy or intention in Bywaters’ mind from 6th June onwards to injure Mrs Thompson’s husband, you can see clearly from every page in those letters of hers that he was trying to break away from the entanglement, and there had not been a great deal of enjoyment in it for Bywaters except when he was at home on leave. He saw the impossibility of the situation, and he was gradually trying to break away; but, unfortunately for him, Mrs Thompson was determined that it should not be so, and so she wrote those letters complaining of her life, and always holding out the hope that they might be able to join each other. The letters should be read from the point of view of the recipient, and not of the writer, and in that light you must come to the conclusion that, whatever her intentions may have been, whatever, in fact, she may have been doing, Frederick Bywaters was no party to it. I go on to inquire if Bywaters became a party to any such agreement after 23rd September. I contend that the whole case for the Prosecution shews that he did not.
I should refer in a word or two to the excellent record of Bywaters. We do not have in the dock here a man who has been charged over and over again with crimes of violence, or a man of evil reputation. We have a man of spotless reputation and good character, and yet it is suggested that he made himself a party to a conspiracy to murder the husband. Bywaters’ case to-day is that it was not until he left the Graydons’ house about eleven o’clock on 3rd October that he had any intention of seeing Mrs Thompson again that night or of interviewing her husband. If you come to the conclusion, as I submit you must, that Bywaters up to that evening had never any intention whatsoever to injure Mrs Thompson’s husband, and that he, on his side, had never agreed with Mrs Thompson that any violence or anything else should be done to Thompson, then your verdict, so far as Mrs Thompson is concerned, is ‘Not Guilty’, and you will have to deal with the case as it affects Bywaters.
I proceed now to deal with what is the real issue for you, and I shall detail the events of 3rd October. Bywaters has said that he left the house on the evening of 3rd October feeling very miserable. He was thinking of Mrs Thompson, and of the complaints made to him when he came from abroad. He says that an irresistible impulse came over him that he must see her, that he must try to help her, and the only way of helping her was to see again whether he could not come to some arrangement with regard to her. She is miserable: this cannot go on: he will see once more if he cannot do something. That impulse coming over him, he walked quietly towards Belgrave Road. As to the details of what happened, the only evidence you have is that of Bywaters himself. His lordship will direct you with regard to the law concerning the various possible verdicts,
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You want me to leave these questions to the jury – (1) Justifiable homicide; (2) manslaughter; (3) murder?
Mr WHITELEY – Yes. I read the report of Bywaters’ evidence of what happened when Thompson met his death. [Reads report of evidence.] How did the knife come to be in Bywaters’ possession? It has been said, and there is evidence to support it, that he bought the knife in Aldersgate Street in November of last year. It is not a strange thing that Bywaters should purchase such a knife, a sea- faring man, visiting seaports in foreign countries? He has told us that he was accustomed to carry it in his greatcoat pocket. There are few sailors* who do not possess a knife. (* Bywaters was not a “sailor” in the technical sense. He was a clerk on board a ship, and had more use for a fountain pen than for a knife. – Ed.) If you accept that, away goes the case for the Prosecution that it was purchased for the express purpose of committing a dastardly murder. If you accept Bywaters’ evidence, then you should come to the following conclusions: —
That the object Bywaters had in going to meet the Thompsons on that night was in order to make some arrangement with him, and not in order to kill him.
That when he arrived at Belgrave Road he had no intention of using the knife.
That Thompson struck him a blow on the chest and said, “I will shoot you,” at the same time putting his right hand into his hip pocket. What was it that would flash through the mind of a man accustomed to visiting foreign countries when he heard the threat “I will shoot you” and saw a hand turned to the hip pocket? It does not matter, I submit, whether there was a revolver or not. The question for the jury is, “What did this man believe at that time”? If you come to the conclusion that Bywaters thought that Thompson intended to shoot him and had a revolver at the time, and that in self-defence he took out his knife and stabbed him, having reasonable apprehension that his life was in immediate danger, then the only verdict is one of Not Guilty, as being excusable homicide.
With regard to the second verdict – if you come to the conclusion that Bywaters did not start the fight with the intention of using his knife, and that he used it in the heat of passion in consequence of an attack made on him by Thompson, you are entitled to reduce this crime from murder to manslaughter.
Or, again, if you are satisfied that Thompson struck him a blow on the chest, followed by the words “I will shoot you,” and by a movement of his hand to his pocket, then there would be such provocation as would enable you to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter.
In considering the statement made by Bywaters I think it is necessary for you to realise that from beginning to end in this case the one thing always in Bywaters’ mind was the position of Mrs Thompson and how she was suffering. When he left the scene that night he did not know that Thompson was dead. He did not discover it until the next day, when he bought a newspaper. The time has come when there should be some alteration in the way in which persons are dealt with at police stations. I am not blaming the police. Superintendent Wensley is one of the most efficient officials there have over been at Scotland Yard, and if was his duty to ascertain who committed the crime and to make all necessary inquiries. What I am complaining of is that when a statement was taken in the circumstances in which it was it should be solemnly produced in this Court as if it were a voluntary statement to be used in evidence against Bywaters. The thoughts of Bywaters when he made the first voluntary statement were concerned as to what had happened to Mrs Thompson. I ask you to put aside altogether the statements, having regard to the circumstances in which they were made, and deal with the evidence of Bywaters as he has given it.
All the time that I have been addressing you I have been conscious of a feeling that, whatever arguments I may use, the Solicitor-General has the right to the final address. It is a curious position. In an ordinary case in this Court where a prisoner gives evidence and calls no other evidence as to facts, his counsel has the right of addressing the last word to the jury. Owing to the fact that a law officer of the Crown has been engaged to prosecute in this case, I am deprived of that privilege. Apparently the privilege was considered so important by those conducting the Prosecution that the services of the Solicitor-General were engaged. So long ago as thirty years, defending in a criminal case, one of the most famous advocates, still alive, commented on this curious and anomalous privilege, remarking, “I hope an Attorney-General may be found some day, unless the law is altered as it should be, to abandon the exercise of a right which does not appear to me to be defensible.” Of course, I know that the Solicitor-General will endeavour to be as fair in his reply as he was in his opening of the case, but I am conscious that the interests of Bywaters may suffer from the fact that the Crown has the last word.
I again challenge the Prosecution to point to one stable piece of evidence, to any evidence, on which you can rely, on which you can say that that man had agreed with Mrs Thompson to do some harm or some violence to Percy Thompson. Judge this young man as you yourselves would be judged. One life has already been sacrificed in this sordid and horrible drama. Is there to be yet another? Frederick Bywaters makes his last appeal to you through me, and he says to you, “It is true, only too true, that I have been weak, extremely weak. It is true, only too true, that I allowed myself to drift into this dishonourable entanglement and intrigue with a married woman living with her husband. It is true that I had not the moral courage to cut myself adrift from it and end it all. It is true, only too true, that she confided in me, that I was flattered that she should come to me, a young man of nineteen, and confide in me. It is true that I pitied her, and that my pity turned to love. I did not realise, I did not know, I had not enough experience in this life to know, that true love must mean self-sacrifice. All this is true,” he says, “but I ask you to believe, and by your verdict to proclaim to the whole world that in all this history I am not an assassin. I am no murderer.” [end of Notable British Trials 1923 text]
Closing Speech for the Prisoner Thompson
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT [source = Notable British Trials 1923] – May it please your lordship, members of the jury – at last I have an opportunity of putting Mrs Thompson’s case to you. It was only at the end of four days, and near the end of the case, that the Defence had an opportunity of shewing to you the other side of the picture already put before you by the Prosecution. It is important that you should realise what you are trying. You are trying one of two indictments. The prosecu- tion have chosen to proceed upon the first, which charges the prisoners with murder. There was another indictment which might be tried by you or some other jury against both the prisoners, and it is important that you should know what that second indictment was. It contained five counts. It charged them with on divers dates between 20th August 1921 and 2nd October of this year conspiring together to murder Percy Thompson;
That between 10th February of this year and 1st October Mrs Thompson did solicit, endeavour to persuade, and propose to Bywaters to murder Thompson;
That between the same dates she did unlawfully solicit and incite Bywaters to conspire with her to murder Thompson;
That on 26th March (I don’t know why that date was chosen) she administered and caused to be taken by Thompson certain poisons or other destructive things with intent to murder; and
That on 20th April she did administer and cause to be taken by Thompson a certain destructive thing, namely, broken glass.
It is quite clear from the sections of the Act of Parliament in question (Offences Against the Person Act) what the law is in relation to the second indictment. Any person who shall confederate or agree to murder any person whomsoever, or shall solicit, encourage, persuade or endeavour to persuade, or shall propose to any person to murder any other person – that person shall be guilty of misdemeanour, and, if convicted thereof, shall be liable to penal servitude for ten years. The first three allegations in that indict- ment are under that section of the Act of Parliament. It is not murder, but an offence whereby they can receive a substantial term of penal servitude. The last two charges of the indictment are framed under another section of the same Act, under which a person administering or causing to be administered to any other person, or to be taken by him, certain poisons, shall be guilty of felony, and liable to penal servitude.
For some reason – you, members of the jury, may possibly understand the reason; I don’t pretend to – the Prosecution here have elected to put these two people into the dock together and charge them with murder. As far as I know, there is no other case in which a jury have been empanelled to try either man or woman with murder where it could not be alleged by the Prosecution that that person did any act when the murder, if it were murder, was committed.* [*Cf. “The Trial of the Seddons.” Notable British Trials. – Ed] By the Prosecution it is stated that Mrs Thompson was what is known in the law as a principal in the second degree, namely, a person who “aids, abets, or assists a murderer when he is committing a murder.”
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: That is not exclusive; If two people contrive a murder they are guilty of murder, even though one was not there.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: Yes, he is an accessory.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You say he is not guilty of murder if he did not actually take part in it.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I am not going to shirk any issue. It is no good when representing somebody to try and put before the jury some story which does not meet the case at all. It cannot be alleged that anything further might be charged against her.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Of course a person might be regarded as an accessory before the fact.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: If the case as suggested by the Prosecution were that Mrs Thompson knew what was going to happen that night, and that she took the person who was to be murdered to the spot where he was murdered, then I would welcome that case. The jury would see that the whole of the evidence was to the contrary in such a case. If you come to the conclusion that she conspired with Bywaters to murder her husband on that night, then you will convict her on that indictment if you come to the conclusion that she was urging on Bywaters. At this moment, however, she sits in the dock charged with being a murderess on the night of 3rd October, and it is for the Prosecution to satisfy you that she is guilty. I suppose that the case for the Prosecution is founded upon nothing but those letters written over a period of time, and founded, outside that, on nothing but guesswork, contradicted when you come to test it. I suppose the case is that there was an arrangement upon that night that Thompson should be murdered, that Mrs Thompson was a party to it, and that Mrs Thompson knew quite well as she was walking down the road near her home that at any moment her husband was going to be taken from her side and murdered in cold blood. I contend that every single action of Mrs Thompson upon the night when the killing took place shews that she knew nothing of what was going to happen.
You have got to get into the atmosphere of this case. This is no ordinary case you are trying. These are not ordinary people that you are trying. This is not an ordinary charge of murder. This is not an ordinary charge against ordinary people. It is very difficult to get into the atmosphere of a play or opera, but you have to do it in this case. Am I right or wrong in saying that this woman is one of the most extraordinary personalities that you or I have ever met? Bywaters truly described her, did he not, as a woman who lived a sort of life I don’t suppose any of you live in – an extraordinary life of make-believe, and in an atmosphere which was created by something which had left its impression on her brain. She reads a book and then imagines herself one of the characters of the book. She is always living an extraordinary life of novels. She reads a book, and although the man to whom she is writing is at the other end of the wide world – in Bombay, Australia, the Suez Canal – she wants his views regarding the characters in the books she has just read. You have read her letters. Have you ever read, mixed up with criticisms of books, mixed up with all sorts of references with which I shall have to deal, more beautiful language of love? Such things have been very seldom put by pen upon paper. This is the woman you have to deal with, not some ordinary woman. She is one of those striking personalities met with from time to time who stand out for some reason or another.
I desire to point out now that the only thing you are trying on this indictment – as to the actual alleged murder – is whether the Prosecution have proved that Mrs Thompson was in fact taking a real part in what happened on the night of 3rd October. As the facts have come out in the case, as far as Mrs Thompson is concerned there are two verdicts on the indictment that you can find against her. She is either guilty of murder or she is not guilty. I ask you again to get into the atmosphere of the life of Mrs Thompson. I do not care whether it is described as an “amazing passion”, to use the expression of the Solicitor-General, or as an adulterous intercourse. Thank God, this is not a Court of morals, because if everybody immoral was brought here I would never be out of it, nor would you. Whatever name is given to it, it was certainly a great love that existed between these two people. We read about love at first sight. But, after all, we are men and women of the world here. Don’t you think it was a gradual process as regards these two people – friendship first of all, gradually leading into love? There has been much questioning by the Prosecution as to the exact time of the two declaring each other’s love, but that is beside the point. I suggest that the time was August Bank Holiday last year, on 1st August when an incident arose out of absolutely nothing – “sending for a pin” – and Mr Thompson lost his temper and threw his wife across the room. There was unhappiness, and the comforter was at hand. The man was ready to take her part, and he became from the friend the lover. You will remember the evidence as to the husband saying to the wife, “I am not going to give you up. You are my wife. You are mine. I am not going to let you go.” Full of human nature, is it not? The two lovers agreed to wait for five years. Can you say that such a wait is the arrangement of murderers, of people who have made up their minds upon a certain date or dates to murder a man? The very last letter, which was made so much of by the Prosecution, stated, “There are only three and three-quarters years left.” Yet it is said that the person who was writing that letter on 1st or 2nd October was a murderess, by inference, not because she struck any blow as a murderess, but because she was planning murder the very next night.
Dealing with the letters, I ask you not to forget that although they have been combed and combed to find anything to suggest that Mrs Thompson is a murderess, 33 out of 65 have not been put before you. In one of the letters there is this phrase – ” All I could think about last night was that compact we made … it seems so horrible to-day.” Is it not palpable that the explanation they have given is the true one, that they had entered into some foolish compact to commit suicide, and not that they had contrived to murder the woman’s husband? She talks there of death for herself and not for any other person. There is nothing in the letters to shew anything but that Mrs Thompson was desirous of impressing on Bywaters that she was prepared to go any length to retain his affection. It is so easy to take bits out of letters in opening a case and to put them before the jury without their context and without the mentality of the prisoner being put before the jury, and say, “What does that mean?” and to take the next reference and say again, “Oh! there is this, too.” It is scarcely fair. If you take the letters and read them through, as I was so anxious you should do, what does it come to? At the most it might possibly make that woman guilty of one of the charges in the second indictment. They certainly do not make her a principal in the killing of Thompson on the night of 3rd October. In her letter of December, 1921 (exhibit 27), she says – “It is the man who has no right, who generally comforts the woman who has wrongs … You will have the right soon, won’t you? Say yes.” That is put before you, picked out as some evidence of murder in their minds. Is it not absolutely consistent with innocence? We all know if a thing is equally consistent with innocence then you will find it of an innocent description. What it means is this – “Thank goodness I shall be taken away and live with you either as your wife, if I am divorced, or as your mistress, if there is no divorce. You will then have the right.” Referring to the porridge incident, I again quote the passage which has been read before – “I had the wrong porridge to-day, but I do not suppose it will matter, I do not seem to care much either way. You will probably say I am careless and I admit I am, but I do not care, do you?” You will remember that the evidence was that the porridge was prepared by Mrs Lester, and that Mrs Thompson occasionally had it, but her husband more often took it. One would have thought there was nothing in the reference to the wrong porridge, but in the witness-box yesterday when asked about it Mrs Thompson said, “I put that in with an object.” Now this is the first time in this correspondence that you come to this extraordinary way of trying to keep the love of a man and trying to impress upon him that it is a love which will not die. It was an extraordinary way of shewing, “I am prepared to go to any extreme to keep your love.”
The Prosecution thought that the only way for them to prove whether those statements in the letters were true or untrue was to have the body of Thompson exhumed. What did they find? They found no possible trace of any sort or kind of poison. They found no trace of glass having been administered in that body. They found just what I hope they will find in my body and yours if ever we are exhumed. And having found that the result of the post-mortem examination was consistent with the suggestion I am now putting before you, that the statements were absolutely untrue that she had administered anything, I do complain that the Prosecution are not generous enough to say, “We will let you have the whole benefit of that. It is true there is no sort of corroboration that you ever gave poison or glass to your husband.” What would you think if you were sitting in the dock instead of in the jury box if nothing had been found that was not consistent with your innocence? When Dr Spilsbury was in the witness-box the Prosecution got him to give an answer to a question which was obvious to all before he said it. “Oh, of course, it may be that poison was given and disappeared. There are certain poisons that do not leave any trace.” How is one going to deal with a case if it is going to be put in that sort of way?
The real truth about Mrs Thompson, as borne out by her letters, was that she was a woman who would go on telling any lies so long as she could keep her lover Bywaters. You are men of the world and you must know that where there is a liaison which includes someone who is married, it will be part of the desire of that person to keep secret the relations from the other partner. It is not the sort of thing that they would bring to the knowledge of their partner for life. Happily, members of the jury, your body includes a member of the other sex, so that you will be able to discuss the matter from both points of view.
I come now to the “You must do something this time” letter. The Prosecution start with the idea that a man has been murdered, and then going back seven or eight months they find that written in a letter and they suggest that it refers to murdering a man. But is not a passage like that exactly what you would expect to find written from one lover to another when it was a case of a woman going away and living with him? As to the sleeping draught illness, there is not the slightest suggestion that Mr Thompson was poisoned. The woman who is supposed to be wishing for her husband’s death searched amongst his belongings for the medicine and destroyed it. As his lordship has said, it is a very long cry from wishing somebody is dead to becoming a murderess. This woman was eight years older than the man, and she realised that she might be losing the man. Listen to the following sentence which she writes – “It was a lie – I would tell heaps and heaps to help you, but darling do you think I like telling them?” I ask you whether in that passage you do not get to the real heart of the woman. Again I read another sentence – “This thing I am going to do for both of us will it make a difference?” Is not that exactly the sort of thing you read in a divorce court correspondence? Although through this woman’s great love for the man she was prepared to leave her husband and risk everything, still at the same time, at the back of her mind and in her heart of hearts she felt – will the time ever come when he will bring it up against me and twit me with it, saying, “Well, you ran away to live with a man”? Is not that what the letter means? I submit that these things were not endeavouring to persuade to murder, but were a thousand miles from it. Dealing with the correspondence up to March, I ask, would you convict anybody of even some small offence on that evidence? Would you not say that the evidence was much more consistent up to then with innocence than with guilt? You would not send any one to prison for a month on that evidence. With regard to the giving of quinine to Mrs Thompson, it may be that Bywaters thought she was a woman to be pandered to. He knew the sort of woman she was, and he has described her to you as living in books and melodramatic. It is suggested that in the letters there are references to the death of Mr Thompson. Unfortunately, there is a lot of loose talk amongst us all. We often hear the expression, “He should be shot,” or “I would like to poison him,” even in ordinary conversation. This was loose talk by Bywaters, and it was the sort of language a man who had an intrigue with a married woman might use. He may have said of the husband, “I wish he would die,” but he did not mean it. Mrs Thompson, wishing to shew him that she would back him up, because she loved him, so wrote the letters that she did write. If you get a woman like Mrs Thompson, she may easily say, “I will back him up.” You can test whether she was putting on paper facts or fiction by the evidence of Dr. Spilsbury and Mr Webster, which was to the effect that she was not giving her husband poison or glass.
You will remember the references to “Bella Donna ” in the letters. I hope that most of you gentlemen of the jury who have read the book have seen the play.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Are you going to put in the book? If you do, the jury will have to read the whole of it.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: I do not wish to do that. I think your lordship gave a description of the book. I will if necessary put in the book.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Surely not. I don’t think that is necessary. I hope not – I hope you will not put it in. You can deal with anything that has been given in evidence about it.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: It has been suggested that the whole theme of the book is the slow poisoning of a husband in order that the wife ‘may live with a wealthy man’. Fortunately we have Mrs Thompson’s view of “Bella Donna.” If it is to be suggested that the reference to digitalis means, “Is it any use for poisoning her husband,” then you must look at her view of the woman in the book. She has described her as a monster. Is it suggested that Mrs Thompson was slowly poisoning her husband? There is no evidence of it. Is it suggested that any one at her instigation was doing it so that she might go off with Bywaters? There is no evidence of it. With regard to the phrase, “You will never leave me behind again unless things are different,” I submit that means that, unless the next time Bywaters comes home she has got a separation or divorce – unless she is his, and can be left behind as his wife or mistress – she will not be left at home at all; they will go away, they will take the risk, and she will go anywhere. With regard to the passage, “I am not going to try it any more until you come back,” and the reference to “the tea tasting bitter” – it is suggested that those statements mean, “Murder him.” Our answer is that it is “fiction,” just as much fiction as “Bella Donna.” Turning to the subject of the aromatic tincture of opium found at Thompson’s house, it is an amazing thing if this woman was desirous of her husband dying that when he was found in possession of something it was taken away from him and she refused to return it.
I again read the phrase, “The third time he found a piece,” in reference to the alleged administration of glass, and I ask you to imagine what effect such a piece of glass would have in passing through the intestines. Did she ever use it three times? The evidence is that there is no trace of anybody ever having administered anything of the sort to Mr Thompson.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Before the Court rises for the day I wish to offer you, members of the jury, this advice. Of course, you will not make up your minds until you have heard the whole case. The only other thing is, having regard to the surroundings for so many days, by all means look at the atmosphere and try to understand what the letters mean, but you should not forget that you are in a Court of justice trying a vulgar and common crime. You are not listening to a play from the stalls of a theatre. When you are thinking it over, you should think it over in that way.
The Court adjourned.
FIFTH DAY
[MONDAY 11TH DECEMBER 1922]
Closing Speech for the Prisoner Thompson (continued).
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: When we adjourned on Saturday I had almost finished dealing with the letters. I wish to refer now to the letter of 28th August (exhibit 63), which contains this passage —
Fourteen whole months have gone by now, darlint, it’s so terribly long. Neither you nor I thought we should have to wait all that long time did we? altho’ I said I would wait 5 years – and I will darlint – it’s only 3 years and ten months now.
That letter, I submit, is a very important one indeed, because it shews what the mind of Mrs Thompson was upon that date, 28th August. She was then saying to her lover, “We arranged five years; I am prepared to wait five years, and there are only three years and ten months to pass.”
I next deal with the letter written on 12th September in which Mrs Thompson refers to the fact that Bywaters is nearing England, and expresses the view that —
This time everything seems different. I don’t hear from you much you don’t talk to me by letter and help me and I don’t even know if I am going to see you.
Does that not shew, what I have been putting before you, that on 12th September Mrs Thompson had in her mind that Bywaters was not so fond of her as he had been, and she was anxious to shew him that she would go to any extreme to keep his love? Look now at the letter of 20th September (exhibit 28) —
You say ‘Can we be Pals only, Peidi, it will make it easier.’ Do you mean for always? because if you do, No, No a thousand times. We can’t be ‘pals’ only for always darlint- it’s impossible physically and mentally . . . If you still only mean for a certain time and you think it best, darlint, it shall be so . . We won’t be our natural selves tho’ I know – we’ll be putting a curb on ourselves the whole time – like an iron band that won’t expand.
That is the woman writing on 20th September a letter which, of course, she had no idea would ever be used against her in this light, writing what she is really feeling a fortnight before the tragedy. It is suggested by the Prosecution that there was not only a conspiracy, but that she was a principal in the tragedy which took place on the night of 3rd October. I submit that these last letters, one after another, shew quite clearly that this charge which has been made is ill-founded. Of course, the letters are prejudicial to the writer, all of them, but you have to be very careful that you do not allow prejudice to be turned into proof. These last letters do not prove at all what the Prosecution seek to make them prove. In fact, they shew that the submission I am making is the true one. In the same letter of 20th September there is this passage —
You are jealous of him – but I want you to be – he has the right by law to all that you have the right to by nature and love – yes darlint be jealous, so much that you will do something desperate.
Start at the end of the story with the death and work back to that, and you can make what is an absolutely innocent expression in a letter appear to be a guilty one. Work back, as the Prosecution have done, from the tragedy, and come to a letter written a fortnight before, and, because in that letter there is this phrase, “do something desperate,” that means that the woman was trying to make the man return to England to murder her husband. Surely, if you look at the letters and all these references, they are absolutely consistent with the story that both Mrs Thompson and Bywaters have told. They are consistent with, “Take me away, I care not where.” Are you, because of the prejudice created by the reading of the extracts from these letters, going to say there is any evidence from them that this woman was a principal a fortnight afterwards in the murder of her husband? I come now to the letter (exhibit 60) which is said to have been written by Mrs Thompson on 2nd October. That letter is one of the strongest documents that you could have against the suggestion that these two persons made a prior agreement, before 3rd October that Thompson should be murdered. It is of the greatest importance to see what it was that was being written by Mrs Thompson to Bywaters on the very day before the tragedy took place.
Darlingest lover of mine, thank you, thank you, oh thank you a thousand times for Friday – it was lovely – it’s always lovely to go out with you. And then Saturday – yes I did feel happy – I didn’t think a teeny bit about anything in this world, except being with you– and all Saturday evening I was thinking about you …. I tried so hard to find a way out tonight darlingest but he was suspicious and still is – I suppose we must make a study of this deceit for some time longer. I hate it. I hate every lie I have to tell to see you – because lies seem such small mean things. . . . There would be scenes and he would come to 168 and interfere and I couldn’t bear that. . . Until we have funds we can do nothing.
Do the Prosecution say that this letter, written on 2nd October, is evidence that these two people were intending murder next day, or the day after, or the week after ? This woman is saying on 2nd October, “It is funds we want, and until we have funds we can do nothing.” They did not want funds for murder, but it was essential that they should have funds for the purpose of living together. Mrs Thompson said that if she were to run away with Bywaters, as she wanted to do, she would have to leave her business. “Darlingest, find me a job abroad.” “Murderess!” say the Prosecution. “I will go tomorrow if you will find me a job, and shall not have one little regret. . . . Help me to forget.” And then the last letter written before the crime was committed – I should like to draw your attention to what was said by the Solicitor-General in cross-examining Mrs Thompson on this letter on Saturday morning. I do not wish to make any remark which in any way can be considered to be improper about the cross- examination, because my learned friend was absolutely fair in dealing with both of the accused persons in the witness-box, but when the Prosecution have to come down to a suggestion such as was made upon the last two paragraphs of that letter on Saturday morning, it is for you to say whether you think they have got a case which can be relied upon or not. The Solicitor-General put this passage to Mrs Thompson, “He is still well, he is going to gaze all day long at you in your temporary home after Wednesday.” The suggestion behind that, of course, was that Thompson was still well. Does that not shew the danger of guesswork when people’s letters are being looked at? When we come to see what the passage really meant, we find that it meant that the pathetic little bronze monkey was still sitting upon her desk, and that opposite was the photograph of the ship that Bywaters had been on.
The next passage in the letter is “Don’t forget what we talked in the tearoom. I’ll still risk and try if you will.” The suggestion of the Prosecution – and they have no evidence at all of it – is that in that tearoom in Aldersgate Street these two people were plotting murder. There is not one scrap of evidence. But having put all those letters before you, and having created the prejudice those letters must create when first read without an explanation, the Prosecution then say, “The night of 3rd October Thompson dies: and ‘Don’t forget what we talked about in the tearoom’” – and you, members of the jury, are urged to believe that they were talking about murder. Both the prisoners have been in the witness-box and have told you how the conversation was the same old story as to taking Mrs Thompson away, as to her leaving her husband and risking all her future with Bywaters. Is it not shewn that that is the way to look at the sentence when the last words of the letter read, “We only have three and three-quarter years left, darlingest; try and help Peidi”? It is almost inconceivable that it can be suggested on that letter, or to think that seriously the Prosecution can say that it shews that these two people were plotting murder. The words shew quite the contrary. Do you imagine that a woman who at that time, according to the Prosecution, had got to the degree of having incited this man to the extent that the murder is imminent, would be writing, “We have only three and three-quarter years left”? If the story put before you by the Prosecution be true, do you not think that you would find in these letters some references egging on, inciting, soliciting Bywaters to commit this murder? Yet you find, in my submission, exactly the opposite. There is not one reference in these letters which any one in this country dare say shews that the suggestion made by the Prosecution is true.
I proceed now to deal with the night of the murder, and I contend that everything points to the killing of Thompson being an unpremeditated act by Bywaters. It was an act by Bywaters, committed according to his own story because he was in fear of his own life – an act which he had not the slightest intention of committing one minute before it was committed. The letters provide the only evidence upon which the charge of murder is framed against Mrs Thompson. Everything that was done and said by her on that night shews as strongly as it can that not only did she not know the murder was going to be committed, but that she was horrified when she found her husband was killed. On 3rd October there was a family theatre party. The evidence is that Mr and Mrs Thompson were at the Criterion Theatre with Mr and Mrs Laxton, and, according to Mr Laxton, were happy and normal. Do you believe that that woman could have sat with her husband and the Laxtons the whole evening, happy and in normal condition, if there was to her knowledge going to happen the tragedy which did happen to her husband? I suppose the suggestion of the Prosecution is that on the journey home Mrs Thompson knew that at some spot her husband was to be attacked and murdered. I must deal in the most serious way with such a suggestion. I venture to point out that there is not a bit of evidence to shew that she knew anything of the sort. The evidence is that she had made an arrangement to go with her husband the next night to meet her maid at Paddington. Is that true or not true? Test it. The maid did arrive the next night, and did go to the house. Do you think this woman, if she was doing what the Prosecution suggest, would have made that arrangement? The Prosecution declared that the tragedy took place at a dark spot; but as a matter of fact the spot was similarly lighted to the neighbourhood around. It was the proper and the best way home that the Thompsons took after coming from the theatre. She did not lure her husband into some dark by-way where a murder could be committed. I ask you to consider Bywaters’ position. Was he going out to murder? He was at the Graydons for the purpose of getting his tobacco, and the last thing he did was to make an arrangement with Miss Graydon to take her to the pictures on the next night. Are you going to cast those facts aside and say that they are of no importance, and that there are those “awful letters”? Where is the evidence that this was the result of a conspiracy between the two, and that she was a party that night to what happened, or in leading her husband to the spot, knowing what was going to happen? I suggest that Bywaters made up his mind suddenly to see Thompson and settle the question of his leaving his wife. You all know how matters of that sort suddenly strike people; there is nothing extraordinary about it. Mrs Thompson’s story that she was pushed aside and stunned is corroborated by her mother, who had felt the bruise.
Members of the jury, every step in this case, when you really come to look at it in the light of the evidence, is only consistent with the story of the Defence being the true one. If Bywaters was acting in self-defence, then you need not consider the case against Mrs Thompson. If you even come to the conclusion that he is guilty of manslaughter, you need not consider the case against Mrs Thompson. It is only if you come to the conclusion, and are satisfied of it upon the evidence, that Bywaters is guilty of murder, that you have to consider whether Mrs Thompson was a party to that murder. The piteous plea of Mrs Thompson, “Don’t, don’t”; her cry to the doctor, “Why did you not come sooner and save him?” and her statement to Mrs Lester, “If they allow him to come home I will make him better,” are all consistent with the story of the Defence. Every act of Mrs Thompson on that occasion was not only consistent with her story that she did not know that the murder was going to be committed, but that she was horrified when she found that her husband had been killed. Test the evidence; don’t be satisfied with guesswork. It is quite clear that in her first statement to the police Mrs Thompson did conceal Bywaters’ name, but I would remind you that you have to deal with human nature. One is apt to be high-minded in a Court of justice; but we have, after all, to deal with human nature. Mrs Thompson knew that her lover had attacked her husband. She did not know he had killed him, and in my submission, although it might be improper, any one of us would, if in the same position, do what has been done here. Of course, Bvwaters protected Mrs Thompson, and, of course, Mrs Thompson protected Bywaters. Of course, one should always tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; but when in a murder case two people are sitting in the dock awaiting your verdict, is there anything in the fact that both keep from the police until a certain moment information about the other? Bywaters would not have been a man if he had not tried to shield the woman. Mrs Thompson would not have been a woman if she had not tried to shield her lover.
Mrs Thompson was taken to the police station and another statement was taken from her. A statement was taken from Bywaters, and next day, the 5th, a statement in writing. Still a denial by Bywaters of Mrs Thompson, and still a denial by Mrs Thompson that Bywaters was the man, and by an extraordinary chance, if the story of the Prosecution is to be believed, when Mrs Thompson was being taken back to the C.I.D. room she happened to pass the very room where Bywaters was standing, and she saw him. That is one story. The other story is that Mrs Thompson was actually taken into the room where Bywaters was, and they were confronted with one another. The woman said, “Oh God, oh God, what can I do? Why did you do it? I did not want him to do it. I must tell the truth.” Is that the statement of a woman who was a party to the killing, or is it the statement of a woman who had protected her lover as far as she could from the police – the statement of an innocent person, who, having protected her lover, realised that the time for protection had passed and that she must tell the truth ? The statement that Mrs Thompson then made to the police was exactly what she states to-day. A little later both these persons were charged. Bywaters, when charged, said, “Why her? She was not aware of my movements.” And where is the evidence in the case that she did know his movements on that night? It is all founded upon the suggestion that they had tea together, and that they may have there discussed the murder. All the evidence is to the contrary – that she did not know he was coming back that night. The statement of Bywaters himself was “I made up my mind at the last moment.”
It will be for you to say whether the arguments I have put forward for your consideration are well founded or not. It will be for you to say, when you have heard the Solicitor-General address you again on behalf of the Crown, whether the Prosecution have proved that either of these people is guilty of murder. I am only concerned with Mrs Thompson. It will be for you to say whether she is guilty of murder, or whether all the Prosecution have done is to shew you a cloud of prejudice, and whether it may or may not be that upon some other indictment she may be found guilty. I have submitted as plainly as I can that upon this indictment, not only have the Prosecution not proved she is guilty, but if you go through these letters and discuss them you will see they are quite consistent with the view I have put before you, and much more consistent, because there are many more references to running away and spending time together in the future, and waiting those three or five years; that all these letters are consistent with the innocence of both the people in this trial. As far as Mrs Thompson is concerned, you do not have to consider the case against her until you are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that Bywaters is guilty of murder, a decision which, in my submission to you, you will never come to when you consider your verdict. I am loath to leave this discussion, because I am anxious to feel and know that I have dealt with the whole case as it is put against Mrs Thompson. I know I have risked your displeasure in taking up your time at such length, but you do not grudge a few hours one way or the other spent on something which means eternity. Of course, I cannot see what is in your minds, because I cannot tell whether the matters I have been discussing are matters that you don’t want to discuss because you have made up your minds. But in asking this question I know one thing: I shall get your answer, and the answer to the question I have put is the answer that Mrs Thompson is not guilty. [end of Notable British Trials 1923 text]
Closing Speech for the Prosecution
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: [source = Notable British Trials 1923] Members of the jury, you have listened to impressive and powerful appeals from my learned friends. Everything that devotion to the interests of their clients can suggest and every argument or plea that skilled advocacy can think of have been used, and I know that you will consider them with care and weigh every argument that has been put forward. I do not ask you to close your hearts to a single plea. But it is my duty to consider the case less passionately than the way my learned friends put it to you. It is no part of my duty to use a single word or to turn a single phrase that would divert your attention from the real facts of the case or to attempt to wrest your verdict by the interpretation or misinterpretation of a single letter or incident. But my learned friends have gone a little beyond an appeal to you which it is their duty to make. [end of Notable British Trials 1923 text]
They have criticised – shall I say reproached – me and my learned friends for our conduct or for our presentation of the case. They have suggested that the Crown, or counsel on behalf of the Crown have, to use Mr Whiteley’s phrase, have laid before you a mass of irrelevant evidence; they have presented the case in an unprecedented and extraordinary way. Well, perhaps the first observation I should make is that it is from some points of view an unprecedented case; from other points of view it is a very ordinary case, but from some points probably it is extraordinary. But I think the real comment upon their criticism of the way in which my learned friends and I have presented the case is this. is this. They have been good enough to say that we have laid the case before you, such as it is, fairly, but more than that they have not taken an objection, a single objection, from start to finish, either to the substance or the form of a single question that my learned friends have asked. Their criticisms, if I understand them, have been directed to the interpretation which we have thought it our duty to suggest to you as the right interpretation of the letters. Well, members of the Jury, that is a matter which is so entirely for you that I say no more about it at this moment, though when I come to the letters I must deal with them. My learned friend Mr Whiteley made one other criticism with which perhaps I ought to deal. He referred to the right which I was about to exercise of addressing you after the observations which he and his learned friend would make. Members of the Jury, was my learned friend afraid that his eloquence would be submerged by mine? If so, he may put his anxiety away. After anything I have to say will come the cooling influence of my Lord’s directions, and, as I have already said, I am not going to attempt to set out this case with a single epithet or a single phrase which would distract your attention.
Now, will you with me approach this case as a very ordinary one, because I think that is the way in which you are most likely to arrive at a right conclusion. Mr Thompson was undoubtedly killed on that night. My learned friend Mr Whiteley has said there was no doubt after the 5th October that he was killed by the hand of Bywaters. The undisputed facts are that Bywaters chose a spot at a great distance from his own home, so that he deliberately went there; it was not an accidental meeting. He chose an hour after midnight, about the most unsuitable hour at which anybody could have engaged in such a discussion as he suggested it was his desire to have with Mr Thompson. He chose a place which in itself was suitable place for such a crime, that is to say, there were not likely to be many persons there. My learned friend suggested that perhaps I called undue attention to the fact that it was a dark place. It was from Bywaters’ point of view a dark place, and the whole of the circumstances under which Bywaters attacked that man suggest at first sight it is a deliberate case of murder.
Now, members of the Jury, it will be for you to consider whether any of the arguments and suggestions made by my learned friend Mr Whiteley in any way indicate that you are justified in find [sic] a less [sic] verdict than murder. It is said that Bywaters was acting not in pursuance of any intention to kill; that he had no motive which would enable him to do that, and that the death was an accident, though the first attack was more or less deliberate, and that therefore it ought to be a verdict of manslaughter. It is suggested even still further than that that this was a case of justifiable homicide on the part of Bywaters. Well, the only observation that I would make as to justifiable homicide – which means that he killed in self-defence – is that it is a suggestion that was made for the first time by Bywaters in the witness box. It never appeared in any of the statements, either written or spoken. It was a suggestion that required for a foundation the sort of evidence that he gave in the witness box as to the apprehension he felt that Thompson was about to produce a revolver, and it must, I think, occur to you that if that had been Bywaters’ real defence it would have appeared long before the hour at which he produced it or suggested it in the witness box. Is there any evidence at all upon which you could reasonably say, indeed possibly come to the conclusion, that he was acting in self-defence when he killed Thompson? As to manslaughter, perhaps the facts are more usefully summarised even from Bywaters’ point of view by Bywaters himself; it is in his statement, Exhibit 6, the statement in which he does not even then tell the truth possibly, but that part of it in which he refers to the actual struggle is instructive. He says, “The reason I fought with Thompson was because he never acted like a man to his wife; he always seemed several degrees lower than a snake. I loved her, and I could not go on seeing her leading that life. I did not intent [sic] to kill him, I only meant to injure him. I gave him an opportunity of standing up to me as a man, but he would not”. Now, Members of the Jury, when you read that statement which Bywaters gives himself of the struggle and of the attack, I suggest to you that when you have my Lord’s direction that means a verdict of murder against Bywaters, and not of manslaughter. You will remember the evidence that was given by Dr. Drought, and confirmed by other doctors, as to the injuries that were received. There were at least four or five deep and probably fatal wounds. There was one which proved fatal, the one that severed the artery. One of them was given, I think the doctor says, he thought, at least from the place where the attack was first delivered, from behind the victim. They were delivered with such force that probably any of them would have disabled the opponent. They were delivered with a weapon which would hardly be used by a violent man without running the greatest risk of immediate death on the part of the victim, and they were obviously delivered with a force which is quite inconsistent, in my submission to you, with any other intention than the intention to kill the man against whom the blows were aimed. Now, I thought it right to consider in this way the case against Bywaters, because, as my learned friend Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett truly said, that is one of the first matters to which you ought to direct your attention, in order to arrive at the right verdict against Mrs. Thompson. I suggest to you that in this case there is but one verdict against Bywaters.
Now, Members of the Jury, how does the case stand against Mrs. Thompson? I am going to suggest to you the way in which you may consider the charges in order that you may weight the evidence; whether I am right or wrong my Lord will in due course direct you, but it is necessary that I shall indicate the way in which I view the charge in order that you may appreciate the bearing of the evidence to which I am going to refer. Now, if Mrs. Thompson, I suggest to you, and Bywaters agreed to kill Thompson, and Thompson was killed in pursuance of that agreement, then it is a verdict of murder against Mrs. Thompson as well as against Bywaters. My learned friends I am sure will not dispute that. Again, if Mrs. Thompson incited Bywaters to murder Mr. Thompson, and if in consequence of that incitement Bywaters did murder Mr. Thompson, Mrs. Thompson would be guilty of murder. My learned friend Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett is good enough to indicate that he does not agree with that. Then, Members of the Jury, happily there is an authority which will direct you on that, so that you will be left in no doubt, but I may say this, that I have some authority for my suggestion. I am not putting this before you as matter of law, but simply as something which you will take into consideration, and I am going now to read a statement which I have already read, made by a learned Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, when he said: “If the principal” – that is Bywaters – “if the principal in substance complied with the temptation” (etc., reading to the words “and that has been affected”). The expression used there is common and I suggest to you it would not be different if the word “incitement” or “instigation” were used, and if you come to conclusion that the instigation or the incitement resulted in the murder of Bywaters, then I am going to suggest to you that Mrs. Thompson is guilty, as a principal she is guilty of murder.
JUSTICE SHEARMAN: What do you mean by “incitement”; that is a dangerous doctrine. Nobody has explained this matter, I think. If you hire an assassin, or persuade him, and go about your business, and then it is done, it is murder.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will take the word “persuasion” if I may, if your Lordship thinks the word “persuasion” is the more convenient or accurate one.
JUSTICE SHEARMAN: No, I think it is a matter one has to be careful about. One finds a good many incitements to improper acts in a great many circumstances. You must not say incite to the particular act, that is to say, murder, not to murder on any particular day; I am not suggesting you must say the Jury must arrive at a conclusion that she said to this man, “I wish you, I Incite you, I tell you, go and murder” and she is expressing approval of it, that incitement or intention must subsist up to the time of the murder. That is why I am inclined to think that we are troubled with this difficulty here. I am going to put to the Jury in good time my view of these letters, but still, at the same time, if you assume that she was still approving up to the time, is not it equivalent to the real case that she knew all about this, and was present at this murder, and knew it was not unexpected as soon as she saw him – knew what he was about?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Your Lordship will remember I said to the Jury if they find in consequence of what I called the incitement – though that may not be the accurate word – if they find in consequence of that incitement, instigation, or even command of Mrs Thompson a murder was committed –
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN I do not feel inclined to leave it like that.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL If up to the time of the murder, or just before the murder, there was the persuasion on the part of Mrs Thompson to commit this murder, and that in consequence the murder was committed, although they parted –
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN If she was persuading him to act at 6 o’clock – half past 5 – when she parted with him upon that day, who can doubt when she saw him coming, even whether she told him the place or not, that she was an accessory – not an accessory – she was a principal in this murder?
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: And even though the time or the place at which the crime was to be carried out varied, then I shall submit to the jury subject to your Lordship’s direction, that she was guilty of murder.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I am glad of your assistance.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Members of the Jury, it is very right that you should realise that anything I may say to you must be held in reserve, and that you should weigh it in the light of the directions which his Lordship will give you. Now I am not going to approach this case with any idea of suggesting to you that you will because some foolish or some wild expressions were used in the letters – I am not suggesting that it would be wise or safe for you to say in consequence of those expressions, having regard to the fact that the murder was committed at a later date that Mrs Thompson is guilty of murder. Do not do that. Do not think that I suggest it but I respectfully agree with my learned friend and with my Lord that, in order that you might arrive at a verdict of murder against Mrs Thompson you must be satisfied that the persuasion – I may use that word – or the direction lasted right up to, not the moment of the murder, but substantially right up to the murder and was a continuing source in consequence of which the murder was committed by Bywaters. If you think that the persuasion had no real connection with the murder if you think that the expressions, however criminal, however foolish, however wild, were not really the cause of the murder, then of course, members of the Jury, in my submission it would not be a case of murder against Mrs. Thompson. What I am going to ask you to consider is the progress of this idea which we find in the letters and see how it was pressed by Mrs Thompson upon Bywaters: how the idea continued right up to the very last moment at which we can trace it, and, of course, when you get to the time at which the two were in the tea-room together on the 3rd October you no longer expect to find correspondence passing between them, when you find from the correspondence that the persuasion, the direction indeed, on the lover was continuing substantially up to the murder. I ask you to say – it is my duty to ask you to say subject to my Lord’s direction – that that amounts to murder.
Now, members of the Jury, in the first place I must deal with the suggestion which my learned friends have made that these letters are consistent with something which is quite different from incitement or instigation to murder, that the expressions mean nothing of the sort. Bywaters in the witness box suggested to you, in fact, that these statements, all of them, I think, he said – I put it to him – referred to a proposal to commit suicide I do not suppose that you will have very much difficulty in dismissing that as the theory or as a matter which was discussed by these two persons. My learned friend, Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett, suggested that what was really passing in the minds of these two persons was divorce or separation, departure of the wife from her husband in order that she might go with Bywaters. That is the really serious matter which they were really contemplating and all the other expressions which were dealt with were hysterical or foolish and extravagant utterances of this woman. Well, a view that I suggest you should consider in that connection is this, that you do not find for some reason or another any determination on Mrs Thompson’s part to leave her husband or to give him cause for divorcing her. For some reason or another they both seem to have put that out of the range of possibility. It may be, as Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett elicited from Mrs Thompson in re-examination that that was not a possibility which Bywaters or Thompson could contemplate because, if she were to leave her husband it would be such a scandal that she could not possibly follow her position and neither she nor Bywaters had means to exist, that is the real view of this case. For this reason she seems from first to last to have done everything she could to keep her connection with Bywaters from her husband’s knowledge. There is a very early passage in the letter of the 3rd January Exhibit 13, where she says to Bywaters “Darlint, I’ve surrendered to him unconditionally now – do you understand me – I think it is the best way to disarm any suspicion, in fact he has several times asked me if I am happy now and I’ve said “Yes, quite” but you know that’s not the truth, don’t you?” There are one or two passages, there is one passage on page 136 in a letter which bears the date 18th November where she similarly refers to a conversation between her husband and herself in which her husband asked her to forgive and forget everything he had said or done in the past and start afresh and try to be happy again and want just him. “He wants me to try as well and so that when another year has passed meaning the year that ends on January 13/1922 we shall be just as happy and contented as we were on that day 7 years ago. These are his words I am quoting I told him I didn’t love him but that I would do my share to try and make him happy and contented. It was an easy way out of a lot of things to promise this, darling.” I do not find in the letters, and I suggest you ought not to find when they are properly read, any real foundation for the suggestion that she was repeatedly trying to get her husband to divorce her and doing everything she could to induce him, that it would be the best thing for him or the kinder thing for him, to get rid of her and she could go off with Bywaters. That suggestion, like the suicide suggestion, seems really not to have been present in their minds. Now, bearing that view of the case in mind, would you allow me to trace the proposal as it appears from these letters, and I think I am able to put it quite plainly right up to the very end the proposal that the husband should be removed by poison. You find the first suggestion of it in the letter of December 11th the letter you will remember Exhibit 27 in which she says “I had the wrong porridge today but I don’t suppose it will matter”. You will remember Mrs Thompson answering that, I think, in examination in chief, to my learned friend, who was examining her, when Mrs Thompson said that that was an expression which referred to something they had talked about making her husband ill. She did not disguise from you that that expression did refer to a proposal either made at a moment of hysteria or perhaps made, as my learned friend, Sir Henry, said, almost as a joke, that her husband should be poisoned. That is not a reference as to poison, however it began. But on page 89 the next page, of the same letter it looks as if it was made more or less seriously because at the end of the letter she says “I acquiesced in everything he said and did or wanted to do. At least it would have disarmed any suspicion he might have had and that would have been better if we have to use drastic measures”. You will bear in mind that my learned friend, Sir Henry, says the drastic measures refers to the suggestion she should leave her husband. Well, members of the jury, you must form your own judgment about that of course, but we are apparently at the early stage of this matter. The next month January 7th to January 20th Bywaters was at home. It is a little important to bear in mind these constant visits to his home for this reason it is suggested that there were so few letters comparatively in which any reference to poison is made. You will bear in mind, of course, that we only have her letters with one or two immaterial exceptions: his letters have all been destroyed and that the frequency of the letters was naturally less than it would otherwise have been owing to his absences abroad and then, again, the correspondence was interrupted by his visits home which lasted from two to three weeks at different intervals and, therefore, we have the letters which passed while he was abroad from her to him but only those letters and what happened when he was at home we can only judge from the correspondence which subsequently ensued. The letter which first ensued after his first visit home was the letter of the 10th February Exhibit 15 and that is the letter which you will remember is the one in which she begins “You must do something this time – I’m not really impatient – but opportunities come and go by – they have to – because I’m helpless and I think and think and think – perhaps it will never come again”. That letter was written to Aden and was received somewhere about March as we know from the Certificate of the Board of Trade showing the progress of the ship. If it is suggested “You must do something this time” refers to making plans for running away with her it is very curious that the next passage refers to something which certainly is not connected with divorce – at least as I suggest to you. It is the paragraph in which she narrates the discovery or attempting to discover a prescription and her narrative of the discovery that her husband was ill to her sister Avis. You will remember that passage where she says “I told Avis about the incident only I told her as if it frightened and worried me”. Mrs. Thompson, I think, saw the force of that and she said she really and frightened and worried. Well, it will be for you to test her evidence apparently by such answers as that. Does the letter not mean what it says, she referred to it as though it frightened and worried her but, in fact, it did not frighten and worry her at all, but pleased and excited her. I suggest to you that the letter can only mean this, that she wanted to create evidence at this time which might be useful in the case of some incident happening which might perhaps throw suspicion on somebody as having poisoned her husband. I suggest to you that part of the letter shows she was excited and disarming suspicion, but if you have any doubt about the letter can you have any doubt about it after reading the last part of it “It would be so easy darlint if I had things – I do hope I shall. How about cigarettes”, unless you can attribute no meaning at all to those passages and suggest they are the result of lightheadedness or hysteria or of fun. Members of the jury, I suggest to you that at this stage with the importance of the letters in connection with the time, you must come to the conclusion that she was proposing to him, arising perhaps out of a proposal from him, that poison should be administered. On February 26th Ex.16 you find a definite suggestion of some drug or medicine or something “I suppose it isn’t possible for you to send it to me – not at all possible, I do so chafe at wasting time darlint”. I do not think it was upon that letter that Mrs Thompson thought it meant something deleterious to the health of her husband, but it was a very similar passage which occurred in another letter and that word “it” undoubtedly refers to something which undoubtedly was to injure her husband’s health. My learned friend reminds me that I asked her about it and she was unable to explain it. On the 14th March as Bywaters was approaching this country again after his trip, Exhibit 20, she refers to a letter which Bywaters had written. It is the second page of the letter; the letter was addressed to Plymouth, where his returning ship would be a few days later. “Why do you say to me ‘never run away, face things and argue and beat everybody? Do I ever run away? Have I ever run away? And do you think I should be likely to now? That’s twice this trip, something you have said has hurt. You will have to kiss all that hurt away – ‘cos it really does hurt – it’s not sham darlint. I’m not going to talk to you any more – I can’t and I don’t think I’ve shirked have I? except darlint to ask you again to think out all the plans and methods for me and wait and wait so anxiously now”. She says “I have not shirked”; does that mean she was, in fact, in this enterprise suggesting to injure her husband’s health? Then there is a silence and you will expect it because Bywaters was home till the 31st March. He leaves on the 31st March and we can only gather what passed between them by the letter which is written on the day he left, March31st, Exhibit 50. She says in a passage “this time really will be the last unless things are different”. Will you read that passage; will you consider whether it throws a light upon whether there had been a discussion between them while he was at home as to what was to happen as between herself and her husband; and if you think it throws any light upon the relations of these parties, members of the jury, you must give it its proper weight. Then on the 1st April, the very next day, Exhibit 17, in which she is a little more explicit in her reference to conversations which it appears must have taken place. This is the page which she exhorts Bywaters not to keep and you will consider for yourselves what that means, does that help you to discover whether the letter is guilty or not? It is suggested, of course, that he is not to keep this piece because it might come into her husband’s possession, and it might lead to the discovery by him of her guilty relations with Bywaters. Members of the jury, I suggest to you – I am bound to suggest to you – that this passage in Exhibit 17 in the letter of the 1st April, written to Bombay, is a passage which deals entirely with this idea which was now occupying so much of her attention, that her husband must be got rid of. “Don’t keep this piece”. Then there is the reference to the Marconigram which suggests a conversation; I think it must be a conversation about the Marconigram; or perhaps a letter written about his departure “Do you mean one saying Yes or No because I shant send it darlint I’m not going to try any more until you come back”. Then there is the reference in inverted commas to the Sunday morning escapade, probably a quarrel, as I suggest to you; a matter which had been mentioned between them. I am not going to read it to you again, I have read it in Opening. The passage is full of crime; if I may suggest it; there is no other interpretation which can be fairly paced upon it. From start to finish of that page, and the next page it is inconsistent with any other view than that she was at the time proposing to injure her husband, members of the jury, an injury which could have only one object, not to make her husband ill so that she would have to look after him, but an injury which would make him so ill, as she put it herself, that if he had a heart attack he would die under it. You find that same expression “I am not going to try any more until you come back” in the letter of April 24th Exhinit 18. She again says in that letter with reference to the light bulb “I used the light bulb three times, the third time he found a piece so I have given it up until you are home”. My learned friend, Sir Henry, rather poured ridicule upon that letter and said that must be the imagination of a hysterical woman, because the use of the light bulb or the glass would have left indications upon the gullet or the organs of the body. Members of the jury, it was in the face of that that I called Dr. Spilsbury and took his evidence so fully with reference to that. My friends made some rather strong remarks and some observations about that fact Dr. Spilsbury was called at all. He was called, in the first instance, in order that you might have the fullest information as to what was found in the body or was not found, rather. My learned friend said he had not been called below; he was called here really as much to assist my learned friend as to assist the Crown. My learned friend quite truly says he did not complain of his being called, what he did complain of was that I elicited from Dr. Spilsbury that you would not necessarily find indications upon the organs of the body of the administration of glass, even in large pieces. Members of the jury, I venture to say that that was a piece of evidence which you would have desired Dr. Spilsbury to give, especially in the light of Sir Henry’s criticism of that sentence in the letter. He says she cannot have used the electric light bulbs. It must have been a hysterical statement because, if she had and a large piece had passed through the body, it would have left marks which would have been discovered through a postmortem examination. Therefore it was most material for your guidance that Dr. Spilsbury should state his medical opinion for what it was worth as to whether or not injury would undoubtedly and necessarily had been caused by the administration of glass. It might not carry the case any further but it would have been quite wrong if you had been left under the impression that glass could only have been administered with the result that injury must have been found when the body was exhumed. I would ask you to notice the recurrence of that expression “I have given it up until you come home”. What had she given up? I suggest to you that she had given up this idea of administering something to her husband. Now his ship was as that time homeward bound; that letter was addressed to Aden on the homeward bound voyage. Her next letter, the 1st May, Exhibit 19, is directed to him at a further stage upon his journey, at Port Said. It is quite plain that he had been writing evidently, I submit to you, as is shown from the second page of the letter, making observations to her about some drug which he had sent or which he has suggested. I think you will remember that Bywaters with some persistence said that this referred to quinine which he had sent her in order to quieten her. He knew that when he sent it it was something to pacify her, I think, in connection with suicide, he suggested. At any rate, this passage, whatever it means, refers to something he had either done or said, perhaps in a letter “You said it was enough for an elephant. Perhaps it was. But you don’t allow for the taste making only a small quantity to be taken”. Then she goes on to say that she tried hard. The next page of the letter is a reference again to the use of glass and then the significant reference, right in the middle of a passage that deals both at its beginning and at its end with the administration of something to somebody: the first sentence the light bulb, the last sentence the drug with a bitter taste, and in the middle of that paragraph, between those sentences comes a reference which Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett said refers to divorce or adultery, “I quite expected to be able to send that cable but no – nothing has happened from it and now your letter tells me about the bitter taste again Oh darlint, I do feel so down and unhappy”. Is that cable the Marconi cable that was referred to in the letter as the Marconigram? Indeed, that letter also is full of proposals like the passage I have already referred to “Do not keep this piece” as to the methods in which her husband might be poisoned. The ship was still coming home on May 18th and she writes to him at Marseilles, Exhibit 22, that is the significant letter in which she sets out the extract from the book “Bella Donna”. Members of the jury you need not perhaps be unduly careful to consider the whole plot in “Bella Donna”. Mrs. Thompson professes when I asked her questions about it not to remember it very accurately. Her memory rather revived when my learned friend put to her questions in connection with Baroudi. However that may be, this is an extract from the letter dealing with the administration of cumulative poison, something in slow doses and she says, is it any use. Well, that was a very important question for Bywaters to consider. Then she says lower down in the letter, rather suggesting Bywaters in only communicating with her on this same guilty subject. She says “I can’t remember all you asked. I have nothing to refer to; everything is destroyed I don’t even wait for the next arrival now”. You will probably remember that in an earlier letter she says when one letter comes I have destroyed the last so I have always one to keep; so secret, so dreadful are the suggestions apparently contained in these letters, whatever they refer to, it is no longer safe for her to keep one. Again, I suggest to you it cannot be because they refer to adultery or guilty relations for this reason apparently it is Mrs. Thompson’s own case and Bywaters’ own case that they were repeatedly pressing upon the husband it was his duty or their wish that he should divorce her. Divorce her for what – of course, for adultery. Members of the jury, the two suggestions side by side are really inconsistent. She was destroying, I suggest to you, these letters from Bywaters because these letters, like her letters, referred to the subject of poison. She does not stop there because on the 23rd May, Exhibit 22, it is quite plain that she is not content with the extract of “Bella Donna” but she sends him the whole book. She meets him with it at Plymouth “you may learn something from it to help us”; she would not have sent the book to Plymouth merely for something to read. He was at the end of his long journey coming home again about to meet her. She meets him and she turns up the extract from the book itself and exhorts him to read it “you may learn something from it to help us”. And within a few days he is with her; from the 26th May to the 9th June, he is at home. It is at this time that she directs her letters to be sent to the General Post Office, she told my Lord that she had the letters sent to the General Post Office in the name of Miss Fisher, and her explanation was that she did not wish these letters addressed to her by her lover to come in the possession of her husband. I have already made comments which are appropriate to that suggestion. Now on the 13th June, two or three days after he has left, she writes a letter which again refers to some weakness on her husband’s part, Exhibit 84. She begins the letter in almost an abrupt way by something which it seems exceedingly probable – in fact certainly – had happened before Bywaters left. The letter is the 13th June but he left this country on the Friday, the 9th June. She refers in the second sentence to something that happened on Thursday before which was the 6th June, “On Thursday – he was on the ottoman at the foot of the bed and said he was dying and wanted to – he had another heart attack – through me. Darlint I had to laugh at this because” – and she underlines the words – “I knew it couldn’t be a heart attack”. How did she know? What else could it have been but a heart attack, except one induced by some external means? A few days later, at least a fortnight or so later, she writes the letter of the 4th July which went out to Fremantle in Australia, and which reaches him, as the ship‘s progress shows, on the 18th August, and on the 4th July she admitted to me she wrote a letter referring actually to poison. That is Exhibit 26, “Why aren’t you sending me something?” and the sentence before is, “We seem no further advanced”. Obviously there is a connection with the following sentence’ “We seem no further advanced. Why are you not sending me something; I wanted you to. You never do what I ask you, darlint, and will have your own way always. If I don’t mind the risk, why should you?” Mrs. Thompson admitted that was something to injure her husband. She admitted to me that those were things, that it was a proposal that her lover had made but which she had at first objected to until she had afterwards communicated with Bywaters; it refers to something which Bywaters had suggested to her, to which she had at first objected until she afterwards acquiesced, and I should like to read to you, to remind you, the answers which she gave to me in this connection. I think they were the answers on Friday in the first part of my cross-examination or towards the end of my cross-examination on Friday. I asked her whether the suggestion came from Bywaters to give her husband something. She said Yes, she could not remember whether it was in a letter or in a conversation, “Did you suggest that something should be given to her husband to make him ill? (A) I did not. (Q) Did you object to it? (A) I was astonished at it. (Q) Did you object to it? (A) Yes, I did. (Q) But although you objected you urged him to send it more quickly than he intended? (A) I was astonished at the time, but afterwards I acquiesced”. Then a little while afterwards I was referring to the sentence, “I am going to try glass”. I asked her what was the suggestion. She says “He said he would give me something”. Then the learned Judge asked her to elucidate her meaning about something. She says something to make him ill so that if he had a heart attack he would not be able to resist. Then later on she says, “I wanted him to believe”……
Mr. JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have got a little bit before this in my note. “He had suggested giving me something to give to my husband. I wished to make him believe I had given my husband something which he had suggested”. Then I interposed as to what giving him something meant, and she said “I do say Bywaters suggested I should give him something to make him ill so that when he had a heart attack he could not resist it”. Then she went on to say that she wrote that because she wanted to humour him. That was my impression.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am obliged, my Lord. The importance of the evidence which Mrs. Thompson gave …..
Mr. JUSTICE SHEARMAN: She added: “I wished him to think I was willing to do what he suggested, to make him ill, not necessarily to take his life”.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am much obliged, my Lord. The last sentence we see there is, “I wanted to make him ill”, or “I was prepared to fall in with Bywaters’ suggestion to make him ill, not necessarily to take his life”. I suggest to you you may fairly exclude that, because there was no object in making him ill and a burden upon her, unless it resulted in his death. I was anxious to remind you of these passages so that I might not put any gloss on this matter which it would not reasonably bear. My learned friend Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett reproaches me with taking these letters a piece here and there, and putting a suggestion on the letters which they would not fairly bear, I am quite content at this late stage to take her own interpretation of the letter, and she frequently admits that it refers to something to injure her husband. It was her acquiescence to a proposal or suggestion which originally came from Bywaters, and that she understood that that was something of the character I have described. This is a comparatively late stage. It matters not, in my submission, from her point of view that she did it in order to keep Bywaters’ affection. It is damning or at any rate it is a serious piece of evidence against Bywaters, if her statement is accepted, because she seems to have thought that the only way she could keep the love of Bywaters was in falling in with this suggestion which my learned friend described as wicked. If it was really that poison should be administered, why did she believe that would keep Bywaters’ affection? Would it keep Bywaters’ affection unless she had reason to believe that Bywaters would compass and help her to compass her husband’s death? Is that the normal thing between a man and woman, that the man’s love should be kept by his lover’s willingness to commit crime? Why did she acquiesce? Why did she think that she could keep Bywaters’ love by acquiescence? Was it not because, if that is the real explanation, Bywaters was proposing this to her as the only way in which she could be his wife or live with him? But, from whichever point of view you take it, it is an incident in the letter of the utmost importance. The suggestion either came, as she said, from Bywaters, or the suggestion came from her, not in the first instance, but perhaps in one sense – it does not matter – because she says that if it came from Bywaters she acquiesced. Was her motive, as she says, not really to engage in such a crime, but to keep Bywaters’ affection? If that really was her motive, she is very determined over it. She not only responds to Bywaters’ suggestion and dots the I’s and crosses the t’s of the ideas which he had mentioned, just to show the response that was in her mind to the lightest suggestion of her lover; she concludes her letter with the startling postscript about bi-chloride of mercury. “Have you studied bi-chloride of mercury?” Does a laundry steward in a ship, even though he was once interested in chemistry, study bi-chloride of mercury? It does not seem as if it appeared in Bywaters’ letters; it appeared to be a suggestion that came from Mrs. Thompson’s mind: “Have you studied it, have you examined it, have you asked what the effect of bi-chloride is, or what its possibilities are?” I suggest to you that that passage throws a little light on the suggestion of Mts. Thompson that all she was doing was to humour the whims of her lover.
On September 20th Bywaters was approaching this country for the last time. He arrived in this country on the 23rd September. On the 20th September, Exhibit 26, she follows up her proposals which she has already made, if that is the right word with which to describe these passages, by saying to him at the end of a long and passionate letter at page 95, “Darlint, you are jealous of him, but I want you to be. He has the right by law to all that you have the right to by nature and love. Yes, darlint, be jealous, so much that you will do something desperate”. That is the letter of the 20th September which meets him on his arrival, presumably, at Plymouth; the envelope is unaddressed, but we know from the evidence given by the witness from the Board of Trade that he arrived on the 23rd September. The letter bears evidence of being written to him to meet him on his arrival. “Do something desperate”. You can, in my submission, only read that in the light of anything that has gone before.
Now here the letters stop, with one exception. As soon as he lands she meets him. She telegraphs to him. She is not prepared to leave him. I am not going to dispute what my learned friend Mr. Whiteley has said with great force, that she was simply doing what a woman would do; she was losing her lover. That is very likely, but at any rate the fact is that she does get into touch with him. She exhorts him to do something in this letter I have just read, and to do something desperate. She meets him on every occasion she can right up to the 4th October. Sometimes she cannot, in view of her husband, as she said in one of the letters, but on October 2nd there is a letter which she dates October 2nd Exhibit 60. She then wrote to him, and at the end of that letter appears a sentence which repats a phrase which had already appeared, and which Mrs. Thompson had admitted means what I suggested it did, “Don’t forget what we talked in the tea room. I will still risk and try if you will”. This is the letter or the passage the use of which my learned friend criticised in measured terms. Well, I am happy to think that the construction is for you and not for me. It is only my duty to call your attention to the salient passages. I find the same expression there; “I am prepared to risk”. My learned friend says I put it to the Witness, and she gave her explanation, which you may or may not remember. I did not pursue it. Was it unfair of me to ask the Witness what the sentence meant? My learned friend was good enough to say it was not at all unfair. It is the duty of the Prosecution to pout every one of the passages there are in these letters which are in her favour if there is a sentence that is capable of lucid explanation. You may no longer think that that sentence has any guilty meaning to it, but that does not answer the next sentence: “I will risk and try if you will. We have only three and three-quarter years left, darlint”. When you review these letters, as I tried to review them with you, not reading them all over again, but only reminding you of the paragraphs, as I have said, I suggest to you that you are driven to the conclusion that right up to the end she was acquiescing in Bywaters’ suggestion. There were some additional questions that I asked Mrs Thompson on Saturday morning, and I have my learned friend’s note, which my Lord will be able to check. It is also in the cross-examination. I begin, if you remember, by asking Mrs Thompson to recall what she admitted to me on the night before, that she had acquiesced in this suggestion, unwillingly acquiesced in this suggestion of Bywaters, and she says as your Lordship’s note has it, that trying again had been discussed between us, and so on; he had probably referred to it in a letter. “He also told me to be very careful not to leave finger-marks”. That is a passage I have not dealt with, but you will remember it: “The proposal to poison was mentioned in some of his letters”. Then I asked her when did she undeceive…..
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: “Some of his letters; I cannot say how many”.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: “Some of his letters; I cannot say how many”. Then I put again to her the “Bella Donna” letter. “I wanted him to think I was eager”. Then I asked her, “when did you undeceive Bywaters? Did you intend to let him remain under that impression right up to the end”, and my learned friend’s note here is this: “I never thought about undeceiving him, I continued to let him think so”.
MR JUSTICE SHEAMAN: I have got it; “I did this to fall in with what he suggested. I never thought of undeceiving him; I never mentioned the subject; I suppose he still thought so”.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: We can prove deception up to the time he came home.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I have got these words: “I never thought of undeceiving him; I never mentioned the subject. I suppose he still thought so”.
THE SOLICITOR- GENERAL: My recollection is Mrs Thompson did give the answer my learned friend has got. I think you may fairly take it that that is the answer. I think also that she – well, this is my recollection as I have a note of it, but at any rate your Lordship’s note is sufficient for my present purpose – that she allowed him to think that she was prepared to co-operate in poisoning Thompson, and she never undeceived him. I asked her as to whether this was mentioned in conversations they had in their meetings on the 29th and 30th September, and the days following, and I think her answer was that she could not say, she did not deny it was mentioned; at any rate, she could not say that it was mentioned, and, Members of the Jury, you will understand the importance of probing what happened at these conversations. If she did not remember it is useless for anybody to attempt to reconstruct the conversations. You can only do what you have done in your own affairs, draw inferences which may fairly be drawn, giving the Prisoners the benefit of any reasonable doubt which there may be. Nothing I will say, nothing I have said, will lead you to think, I hope, that I wish to press a single phrase, a single letter, beyond its proper importance. But when she tells us that she acquiesced in Bywaters’ suggestion, and she left him under the impression that she was prepared to give her husband something to make him ill, and she says she never undeceived him, is it possible that the anxiety that Bywaters, according to her, had evinced to injure her husband would evaporate when he comes into fresh touch and hearing and in the presence of his lover? Is it possible that that proposal should never have been the subject of conversation between them? If, after hearing my Lord’s direction, you think that it is utterly unsafe to suppose that this idea continued, and if you think it evaporated with the last letter she wrote to him on his homeward journey, well, then, Members of the Jury, it will be your duty to say that the Prisoner Mrs Thompson, is not guilty. These matters are for you; all it is my duty to do is to suggest to you that upon a fair reading of the letters and upon a consideration of the construction of their meetings within a short time of the reception of these letters, it is only possible to come to the conclusion that the same idea was present in their minds, the same suggestion was discussed. Then I am going to ask you to say that the proposal and the discussion resulted in an agreement in consequence of which Mr Thompson was killed.
Now, when we come to that day itself, there are some matters which are worthy of your consideration. I do not think, or suggest to you, that you should not think, that it is really relevant or very important to consider what arrangement Mr and Mrs Thompson had made for the 4th October, or what arrangement Bywaters had made with Miss Graydon for the following day. Of course, Mr Thompson would make the arrangements to go to meet the maid; he would not know he was going to be assaulted or killed; Mrs Thompson would not be likely, if she had any guilty intention or knowledge, to break an engagement that had been made with her husband to meet a maid who had presumably been engaged some days before, because her husband was going to be killed. I suggest to you it does not throw much light in [sic] the incident that Bywaters had made an arrangement to take Miss Avis to the pictures on the following night. He would not expose his guilt; he would be likely to cover his guilt. I think you may dismiss these considerations from the point of view either of the Prosecution or the Defence – it is a matter entirely for you; but what is of some importance, in my submission is this, that Bywaters’ story that he thought of this murder as the result of the unhappiness of his thoughts on that evening, that it was a sudden idea of his, are they consistent with the fact that he had in his pocket the dreadful weapon with which he committed this crime? I asked Bywaters about that knife, or I think my learned friends asked, and he said that he always carried that knife with him; it was a knife that he had abroad. My learned friend Mr Whiteley quite truly said it is the sort of knife that a sailor might have who was visiting foreign parts. Members of the Jury, is it the sort of knife he would be likely to carry in his pocket in this more or less peaceable land? If you think fit, looking at the overcoat and looking at the knife again which was passed across the Court, consider whether it is a handy or convenient weapon to carry in his breast pocket? You saw the length; I forget it. Of course, if he has always carried that knife with him, to some extent that corroborates his story, but not a single witness was called, neither Mrs Thompson nor Mrs Bywaters, his mother, nor one of the Graydons was asked as to whether they had ever seen this knife in Bywaters’ possession or as a weapon that he was accustomed to carry with him. It is very difficult to think that a hunting knife of that character would not have been the subject for some jocular conversation if he had always had it in his pocket, or that it would be noticed. But if, contrary to what he says, that he always carried the knife with him and it happened to be handy when he committed this crime which suddenly came into his mind when he found himself defending himself, if contrary to that suggestion he went home to fetch the knife, or brought it out with him in consequence of his conversation with Mrs Thompson, then it has got a very great importance. There again you will consider if the incident is one which you can accept as throwing any light on the crime or not. I am suggesting to you – I am bound to suggest to you – that Bywaters has told a story as to that knife which is not corroborated, which is very difficult to accept, and then you will be driven to the conclusion, if he did not carry that knife, he brought it out on this night for a deliberate purpose, and it may be said that that throws a light on the guilt of Bywaters, and not Thompson. If you think they met with the possibility of getting rid of Thompson, then the fetching of the knife or the carrying of the knife when they went to meet would be of considerable importance.
Now, what do we know about the incident itself? Mrs Thompson says that she knows nothing about it except that she was pushed aside. Her evidence is not altogether consistent now with the statement that she made in her last statement, the short statement that my learned friends read, in which she says, “A man rushed out from the gardens and knocked me away from my husband. I was dazed for a moment. When I recovered I saw my husband scuffling with a man. The man who I know as Freddie Bywaters was running away. He was wearing a blue overcoat and a grey hat”. It may or may not be consistent with that second statement. It is certainly not consistent with her first statement, nor is the evidence given by Bywaters consistent with any of his statements. My learned friend says they are not to be found guilty because they told falsehoods with the intention of shielding each other. The only observation that it occurs to me to make, and which will occur to you, is, Does not it then preclude you from accepting at their face value statement made by the Prisoners in the witness box or in their statements? It is quite true that statements in the witness box are given on oath, and these statements were voluntary statements or elicited by question and answer, it may be, not on oath, but you will have to decide whether the statements made as to the actual incident are consistent or not with the statement made by the witnesses at the first meeting, and if they are not consistent, to consider what weight can be attached to the evidence given by the witnesses. But really, even from Mrs Thompson’s point of view, I do not know that it is of very great importance what she says, because I am not concerned to ask you to be satisfied that Mrs Thompson knew either the manner or the time or the place at which the deed would be done. Subject to my Lord’s direction, it would be conceivable that you might think there was an agreement that the husband should be killed although Mrs Thompson was to be left in ignorance of the time and place and manner in which he was to be killed; and therefore Mrs Thompson’s evidence as to what happened at the scene is not perhaps very important.
Now, Members of the Jury, I have discussed the case sufficiently long with you, at any rate, for me to present my view of it, the view which I put before you on behalf of the Crown. My learned friend Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett more than once made suggestions to you as to my case, or the case for the Crown, which are not the case for the Crown. The case for the Crown is this, that there was an agreement between these two persons to get rid of Mr Thompson, or that if there was not an actual agreement in terms to get rid of Mr Thompson there was, as I have already said, an instigation by Mrs Thompson to get rid of him upon which Bywaters acted so as to kill Mr Thompson. I have dealt with the case against Bywaters; you will deal with it, and think of it, apart from all the letters you have had read, and consider first of all whether or not he really intended to defend himself, or whether he went there to injure the man – deliberately to injure him – and if necessary to kill him; in which case it would be murder. Then consider Mrs Thompson’s position. Take her admission as to what she intended; take her admission as to what she proposed to Bywaters. Take her admission as to the acquiescence which she made to Bywaters’ suggestions, and, weighing everything carefully as you will on behalf of the Prisoners say, after my Lord\s direction, whether or not Mrs Thompson was guilty of murder.
You have had an anxious task; I myself have had an anxious task. The Prosecution is under no duty, as I have already said more than once, and as I want to say again, to press anything beyond its fair value, but it is my duty to ask you not to shrink for one moment from giving a reasonable construction to these letters, and from giving to every incident in the case a reasonable constriction, even though that construction will result in your returning a verdict of guilty of murder against the woman as well as against man
CHARGE TO THE JURY
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Members of the Jury, there are several indictments in this case, only one of which has been presented, only one of which is before you, and that is the indictment of this man and this woman for wilful murder. The first case which you have to consider is as to the man, and I will come to that before I ask you to consider the case of the woman. The case presented is that these two by arrangement between each other agreed to murder this man, and the murder was effected by the man. Unless you are satisfied of that, namely, that they did it by arrangement in the way I shall explain to you, there would be no case against the woman. But with regard to the man, if you are satisfied that, without any arrangement with the woman, he intended to murder, then, of course, you can find him guilty of that, and that is why I am asking you to consider the case of the man first. But before I do that there are one or two observations I wish to make as to your duty. Of course, when a jury are summoned to try a case for murder, it is always an anxious time; it is as anxious for the judge as it is for the jury. But, whether it be a case of murder, or whether it be a case of petty theft, your duty is the same, and I want to explain to you what it is. In a phrase, you are there to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent. That means that you have two duties, you have got to look very carefully, patiently and sensibly, and acquit unless you are satisfied that the case is proved. On the other hand, if you are satisfied that the case is proved, it just so much your duty, and an equally important duty, to convict because if crime is not detected and conviction does not follow detection, crime flourishes. You have two duties; one is to protect the public by always convicting if you are satisfied that there is crime, and the other is to protect the accused by always acquitting if you think the evidence is unsatisfactory. I have only one word which I hope you will excuse me saying, it may be quite unnecessary — perhaps there are two things I should say to you. Of course we all of us in the last three or four days have been carrying on this work in a rather unnatural and unreal atmosphere. We are in a Court of justice, and courts of justice in this country very properly are open to the public; it is the right of the public to come to a court of justice and listen to the proceedings. Cases do arise where large numbers of the public want to come in, and they do come. It is inevitable that you should have been surrounded by a different from that which prevails in the ordinary humdrum of the Courts, and you must throw that aside, try to escape from that, because this charge really is — I am not saying whether it is proved — a common or ordinary charge of a wife and an adulterer murdering the husband. That is the charge; I am not saying for a moment it is proved. We heard of flights of imagination in this case, and there was one that I cannot help alluding to. The whole of this case has very properly been conducted with studious moderation by the Prosecution, which is quite usual and proper, and more fervently by the counsel for the Defence, and that again, is quite usual and proper. When one heard the statement made that never before in the history of crime had anybody ever been charged with a murder when it was not suggested that that person had taken a hand in actually inflicting the blow, I sat amazed. These cases are not uncommon; I am not saying they are common cases. If the learned counsel who said so had been in this Court a few months ago he would have seen me sitting and trying one. He was a but irregular in saying that.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: If I did say so – and I certainly did not intend it – I am told by my learned friends –
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: You did say so.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: Then I certainly did not intend it. What I was putting was that this form of charge was a new form of charge, I was asking my learned friends whether –
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: I took down your words and they could have no other meaning than that this was an unexampled and unusual case.
SIR HENRY CURTIS-BENNETT: Charge, my Lord
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: ‘Charge’. I do not say that cases of murder are always unusual but there are cases of husbands who, in order to marry somebody else, wanted to get rid of a wife, and the wife who wanted to get rid of the husband. Let us say in the interest of the fair sex that they are more often on the other side, but such things are known and they are not unusual. Now, I have only one other observation about Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett; he said, and, indeed, I am afraid it has become now a precedent in this country, that, he thanked God that you had got to decide and he had not. If that remark is intended to frighten you I hope it will not. We are dealing with law and justice here and I do not like invocations to the Deity. This is a case, we have no doubt, as anxious a case as other murder cases. You will apply the ordinary principles of common sense, and I will tell you exactly when there is any law, you may take it from me, and unless I mention there is any law, you will understand that I am talking merely about facts.
There is only one other observation I am going to make which has nothing whatever to do with counsel. You are told that this is a case of great love; I am only using it as a phrase. Take one of the letters as a test. We have had for days an atmosphere, both in speeches and in questions, of this kind, just at the end of a letter I shall have to allude to again comes this: “He has the right by law to all that you have the right to by nature and love.” Gentlemen, if that nonsense means anything it means that the love of a husband for his wife is something improper because marriage is acknowledged by the law and that the love of a woman for her lover, illicit and clandestine, is something great and noble. I am certain that you, like any other right-minded person, will be filled with disgust at such a notion but, as I have said, you are not trying that, you are trying this in a practical-minded way. Let us get rid of all that atmosphere and try this case in an ordinary common sense way.
Now, what is murder? You will take the law from me. Murder is the intentional killing of a human being. You sometimes hear the words “malice aforethought”; that does not mean it need be premeditated over a long time; all it means is it is intentional. Did the person charged intentionally kill? Only one other thing I want to say, I do not think it arises in this case for the reason I am going to give you. In one of the statements made by the male prisoner he said, “I only intended to injure him and not to kill him.” This much, however, is clear and this you may take from me; I do not think it will arise because the case made is that he went out to kill him, not to injure him. The law is clear that if a person goes out to injure anybody else with a deadly weapon (you have seen the knife) which any reasonable man would know might kill, then he is responsible for murder whether it was in his mind actually to kill or not, because a person is taken to know the reasonable consequences of his own actions. That is all you have got to know about the law upon that. I shall say something more to you when I am dealing with the case of the woman, which you have got to take into consideration as a question of a law, but I will deal with that presently because I am asking you now to deal with the case of the man and I will deal with that when I have finished dealing with the case of the man. I am not going to deal at length with the letters and I have only one other point of law to put to you. Gentlemen, you know the facts of this case are extremely short and simple, the only length in the matter comes from the letters. As I told you, you will remember, in the case of statements made in the letters or the statements made by one not in the presence of the other, which they had nothing to do with, they are not evidence at all against the other person, and the statements by the lady in her letters that she administered glass or something are not evidence against him, but when people go into the witness-box and admit that they received letters and answered them, anything said by the man is evidence against the woman and anything said by the woman is evidence against the man, because they are represented by separate counsel who could have cross-examined them. You have noticed, I daresay, in the course of the case that where the woman made statements they are mostly something excusing her and implicating the man, but in some of them when the man is making statements they are always exculpating the woman; it is said that is chivalry and that is why he is doing it. What either of them says on oath is evidence against the other but apart from that I am going to say very little about these matters, except that there are certain things that one has to take with regard to him and you are now considering the case of the man alone; the man admits he gave her something; he says it was quinine and the woman says in the witness-box — I am referring to them as man and woman in the case without any disrespect – the man says that he did give her some quinine and the woman says “He gave me something and I do not know what it was.” Certainly the woman says that the man wrote to her saying that it was “enough to give to an elephant” and the woman says yes, she did give something to the man. If that meant to poison him or to make him die because he was unable to resist it in a heart attack, it is common sense to say that would be murder, if that was done, just as much as the longest and strongest dose of poison. It is useless to say that because he has got a weak heart I can give him a smaller dose and then it will be partly from his heart and partly from the dose. A man with a weak heart is entitled to be protected from poison as well as anybody else. She does say that he had given her something to give to the man and she admits, although I do not know that he has — I have not got it in my note — she admits that he did write to her saying “Be careful not to leave any marks on the glass.’ That is all I am going to say with regard to the man as to the letters with regard to the charge against him because we are not now really trying affection, we are trying did he intentionally kill this man. He comes back after this correspondence, correspondence in which the woman was suggesting poison to him, although he thought it was melodrama. Now what were the relations between the parties at that time? Let us go back and think of it again with plain common sense. The man had been married to the woman for some years, and in June of 1921 this young lad went with them to the Isle of Wight. I think it was attempted to be suggested to you that the man was friendly with the woman; there was no love between them. When one looks at her letters sent to him I think it is on June the 14th 1921, she says that she is writing this on this day because one year ago they had their first kiss when they were on a charabanc ride in the Isle of Wight, so it is pretty obvious that there were relations between them then. There is another one in which she said she had had a quarrel with her husband over the old subject; “he was jealous of you.” One thing, I think, is perfectly clear, at any rate, from the moment when he left the house, as he says, by his own wish, as well as with the wish of the husband, their relations were affectionate and they were clandestine from beginning to end if one looks at the correspondence. The first letter you have on page 27 “Come and see me lunch time please darlint, he suspects”; that is in August. The next, the telegram on page 122 “Wait, till one, he’s come,” which is a note. The husband is here so you must wait. There is a letter, the last letter of all, I think, which is written one or two days before this man met his death, on page 119, “I tried so hard to find a way out tonight darlingest but he was suspicious and still is — I suppose we must make a study of this deceit for some time longer.” Now, gentlemen, the first thing you have got to make up your mind about — because this has a direct bearing upon the case put by him as well as by the woman — if it was clandestine how can you believe evidence that they were always talking to him and saying “Give her up,” and he said “No, I will not give her up”? I think that being the relation between the parties you will have to ask yourselves, if the relations were clandestine in dealing with a good deal of evidence of the case, what it means and why it was clandestine. Now a moment’s consideration – we have got to look at the man as well as the woman, taking the surrounding circumstances of the case. It is said, you know, all they were writing about and a good many of the things they were saying were merely about going off together. Nothing prevents nowadays in this country a woman going away with another man except the divorce court, and what else – the trouble, as is said in one of the letters, of ways and means. This man was in a respectable occupation, the woman was in a respectable occupation, if they were going off with one another, even if they stayed in the same place, it might end in their losing their positions and having nothing to live upon. If it does not lead to that it means it leads to scandal. Therefore, it is said, that the reason why they were going on like this for an agreed number of years if nothing else happened – it is part of the case that both said “we are going to keep this quiet because we cannot afford to risk our positions and our place in society; we must keep it dark,” and the whole of the evidence is that from the moment he came back the last time they saw each other every day except when the husband was at home and he would have been suspicious if they went out. That being the general circumstances of the case you will, of course, bear in mind whether you should believe the evidence, particularly with regard to the evidence this man has given, that they were always asking him to grant a divorce and let them go off.
CECIL WHITELEY: Might I intervene here, my Lord; I think I am right in saying that the evidence of Bywaters is that he himself only saw the husband in August and in November and a divorce was spoken of. That is his evidence.
JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Mr. Whiteley, I do not see any necessity for the interruption. Now let us go on. He comes home from his last voyage and, as I say, every day except when it is impossible without the husband knowing, they meet one another. Of course, as I have said before, these letters do show on the face of them; and you will hear more of that later – that whether he thought it melodrama or not the lady was writing suggesting that she was poisoning her husband. On this particular day, by an arrangement made with her husband and other people, she goes to the theatre. She sees him. The two meet at 5.30, at 6 o’clock she tells us she had got to meet her husband and so goes off. At about 7 o’clock he presents himself at Shakespeare Crescent, about two miles from the scene of where this unfortunate man met his death. He has a knife in his pocket; you must take the knife and see it. It is very pertinently said to you (although you are the judges); what I am saying to you now has nothing to do with the law, I only mention it to you and you can draw your own inferences; it is for you and not for me; I am only putting facts before you for consideration that you can accept or neglect, as you like, because you are in complete control over this and what inferences you draw or who you believe is entirely for you. You will see the knife and take it with you when you retire. So that these outstanding handles would not press against you they would be in a leather sheath, which has disappeared; I do not know what has become of it but, as you know, his evidence was that he always carried it about with him. It is a little difficult to put into any kind of pocket, except the side pocket. It is pointed out that no other person had seen it. It is suggested by the prosecution that when he arrived at, as he undoubtedly did – there is no dispute about that – Shakespeare Crescent, two miles off the scene of the crime (if it was a crime) – the scene of this death – he had got this in his overcoat pocket. It is not suggested he showed it to anybody. There is possibly no reason that he should if he had got it but it is suggested by the Prosecution that he went there with that knife in his pocket and that no reasonable man in England, who was spending the evening with some friends, would take a knife like that about with him, and whether he went home to get it or whether he had been carrying it about all day, he went there with it at 7 o’clock, where he was from 7 o/clock to 11 o’clock, – I think these were the hours given, but he was there all the evening with those people at Shakespeare Crescent. It is suggested that he had got that knife in his pocket, and it is suggested by the Prosecution that the only reasonable inference is that he put it in his pocket for the purpose he had in view. He was there till 11 o’clock, or after eleven. I will read you presently his own statement, you know practically what it is; he was suddenly seized with an impulse to talk to this husband because he was so miserable about the wife; to talk to him about a separation or a divorce – sudden impulse. It is said by the Prosecution nothing of the sort; he went out to lay in wait for husband and knew where he was coming. You have his own statement which I will read to you at length eventually. But what did happen was this: on evidence which is not contradicted: at this particular place, I have no doubt you know it, I cannot give it exactly bust as near as possible; it is a quiet road at half past 12 at night, the husband and wife are coming down, she is next to the wall, her husband outside coming down on the pavement. In one of his statements Bywaters said he waited for them; in his own sworn evidence he said he came up from behind. You will consider when coming up behind at that time of night, if he were coming up – I am putting plain common sense considerations before you – do you think they would have heard him before he came up to them or do you think the blows were struck before they heard him. Whichever it was, the man is struck, as one sees from the blood stains and struck again probably in the front because there is more blood there but he has gone a certain number of feet down the road; but it is obvious he has got into the road then where there is a lot of blood, which spurts out; he goes back and staggers and wobbles towards the wall and sinks down with his back against the wall, and it was 46 or 47 feet in all because there are spots of blood; that is the way of it. What is found on his body? There is found one blow, a wound which comes in behind the neck; it is suggested administered by this weapon, and it comes into his mouth, driven with such force into him that it comes out into his mouth. There is another one, driven with such force into the back that it reaches down to the spine. There is a third wound which, it is suggested by counsel for the defence, was inflicted from the front, but there it is, it might be, but very likely it was, inflicted from behind, which cuts — not slashes you recollect, but stabs — the gullet and cuts the carotid artery on the right, side. From that blood gushes out with enormous force and renders death inevitable in a few minutes. I am putting aside the evidence of the man and the woman because you may think the whole of it is made up. There is no question about the blood stains; I do not say you will think it is made up, but you might. All human evidence, particularly of people who are defending themselves, is liable, if they have an interest, to be uncertain, so that the evidence of anybody who has an interest is to be scrutinised, and the evidence of the bloodstains cannot be disputed.
Now, what happens afterwards? I am not going into the woman’s case at all, except to the fact of her interest in the husband. I will deal with her evidence in detail later. The man goes away. The man who was killed sinks down, and even the doctor who comes up is under the impression — I will say something about it presently – that he has not been stabbed but it was a broken blood vessel or something of that sort, blood welling out from his mouth; it was an illness. Eventually the police come up and when the body is taken away the wounds are discovered. What does the man do? His evidence is that he ran away and a number of people come up and all their evidence deals entirely with the woman, so I am not saying a word about that with regard to the man because statements made in evidence again, by other people with regard to the woman do not affect the man. So far the man is killed admittedly, and now the only two people present, the wife and the lover, give evidence to shew whether one or the other had inflicted the blow, or some third person or some entirely independent person had inflicted the blow. It is only when the police come upon the scene – and I am only going to give you his statement because her statement is not made in his presence but her evidence in the witness box is evidence which is entitled to be used for or against her – statements made by one person not in the presence of the other are not evidence unless they are on oath and can be cross-examined to. The police come upon the scene and these are his statements. The first one is admittedly now a tissue of lies. The police get the letters and have a suspicion of him and they get him to make a statement: “I have known Mr Percy Thompson for about four years” I do not know whether you had a copy of this or not –
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: No, my Lord.
MR.JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Perhaps you had better have it. There is such a lot, I do not want to read the whole of it. Perhaps I had better: “Mr. Thompson is a shipping clerk, his wife is in a millinery business, and they reside at 41, Kensington Gardens, Ilford. I stayed with them from June 18th, 1921, to the 1st August 1921. The first week that I was there, I was there as their guest and the remaining weeks I paid 25/- per week. The cause of my leaving was that Mr. Thompson quarrelled with Mrs. Thompson and threw her across the room”, not that he was the cause at all – “I thought it was a very unmanly thing to do and I interfered. We had a quarrel and he asked me to leave and I left. I had always been exceedingly good friends with Mrs. Thompson. I was also on visiting terms with the mother of Mrs. Thompson, a Mrs. Graydon, who resides with her husband and family at 231, Shakespeare Crescent, Manor Park. After I left Mrs. Thompson I went back to reside with my mother at my present address. On the 7th September 1921 I got a position as writer on board the steamship “Morea”. I sailed on the 9th September and returned to England the end of the following month. Shortly after I came back from the voyage I called on Mr. and Mrs. Thompson at their address. Mrs. Thompson received me quite friendly, Mr. Thompson a little coldly but we parted as friends. The same evening I called on Mrs. Graydon and I there again saw Mr. and Mrs. Thompson, who were visiting her. I have met them once or twice at Mrs. Graydon’s since, the last time being in June last. Since that date I have never seen Mr. Thompson. I have met Mrs. Thompson on several occasions since and always by appointment. They were verbal appointments. On Monday last I met her by appointment at 12.30pm at Aldersgate Street. We went to lunch at the Queen Anne’s Restaurant, Cheapside. After lunch she returned to business and I have not seen her since.” That is to say, it was a concealment of facts – “Mr. Thompson was not aware of all our meetings but some of them he was”. Do you think that is candid – “I have known for a very long time past that she had led a very unhappy life with him. This is also known to members of Mrs. Thompson’s family”; that does not seem to be accurate; “I have written to her on two occasions. I signed the letters Freddie and I addressed her as “Dear Edie.” I think it is obvious, as was suggested by Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett or Mr. Whiteley, that that took the form of question and answer; then he goes on “On the evening of Monday 2nd October I called on Mrs. Graydon and stayed there till about 10 o’clock. I never mentioned the fact that I had lunched with Mrs. Thompson that day and as far as I know Mr. Thompson was not aware of it. I left my home yesterday morning about a quarter to twelve. I was dressed in the same clothes that I am now wearing. I went up West and remained there until the evening. I was alone and never met anyone that I knew. I then went to Mrs. Graydon’s arriving there about 7. I left about 11 o’clock, my impression is that it had gone eleven. Before leaving I remember Mrs. Graydon’s daughter Avis saying that Percy (Mr. Thompson) had ’phoned her up, and I gathered from the observations she made that he was taking his wife to a theatre that night and that there were other members of the family going”. You notice that he had heard the same evening from Mrs. Thompson – “When I left the house I went through Browning Road, into Sibley Glove, to East Ham Railway Station. I booked to Victoria which is my usual custom. I caught a train at 11.30 p.m. and I arrived at Victoria about 12 30 a. m. I then discovered that the last train to Gipsy Hill had gone; it leaves at 12.10 a.m. I had a few pounds in money with me but I decided to walk. I went by way of Vauxhall Road, and Vauxhall Bridge, Kennington, Brixton, turning to the left into Dulwich, and then on to the Crystal Palace, and from there to my address at Upper Norwood, arriving there about 3 a.m. I never noticed either ’bus or tram going in my direction. On arriving home I let myself in with a latchkey and went straight to my bedroom. My mother called out to me. She said, “Is that you, Mick?” I replied “Yes,” and then went to bed. I got up about 9 a.m. and about 12 I left home with my mother. I left my mother in Paternoster Row about half past two. I stayed in the City till about 5. I then went by train from Mark Lane to East Ham, and from there went on to Mrs. Graydon’s, arriving there about six. The first time that I learned that Mr. Thompson had been killed was when I bought a newspaper in Mark Lane before I got into the train to go to East Ham. I am never in the habit of carrying a knife. In fact I have never had one. I never met a single person that I knew from the time that I left Mrs. Graydon’s house until I arrived home. Mrs. Thompson has written to me two or three times. I might have received one letter from her at home. The others I have received on board ship. I have destroyed these letters. She used to address me as “Dear Freddie”and signed herself “Peidi.” I occupy the back bedroom on the top floor at my address, and that is where I keep all my clothing. When I said that I was dressed in precisely the same clothing yesterday as I am to-day, I meant it to include my under-garments, with the exception of my collar and handkerchief, which are at home. This statement has been read over to me, is voluntary and is true”. It is not suggested that this was anything else but an intention to deceive the police. Later on he finds out she is there, whether actually they are both together or he sees her there I do not know – there seems to be a conflict of evidence about that; it does not seem to me to make any difference. Then he says “I wish to make a voluntary statement – that is on the 5th October, the next day. The first statement is made the same day, early in the morning of the 4th or night of the 3rd. On the 5th he makes this “I wish to make a voluntary statement. Mrs. Edith Thompson was not aware of my movements on Tuesday night 3rd October. I left Manor Park at 11 p.m. and proceeded to Ilford. I waited for Mrs. Thompson and her husband. When near Endsleigh Gardens I pushed her to one side, also pushing him further up the street. I said to him, “You have got to separate from your wife.” He said, ‘‘No.” I said, “You will have to.” We struggled. I took my knife from my pocket and we fought and he got the worst of it. Mrs. Thompson must have been spellbound for I saw nothing of her during the fight. I ran away through Endsleigh Gardens, through Wanstead, Leytonstone, Stratford; got a taxi at Stratford to Aldgate, walked from there to Fenchurch Street, got another taxi to Thornton Heath. Then walked to Upper Norwood, arriving home about 3 a.m. The reason I fought with Thompson was because he never acted like a man to his wife. He always seemed several degrees lower than a snake. I loved her and I could not go on seeing her leading that life. I did not intend to kill him. I only meant to injure him”. I have already commented on that; if he stabbed him without any excuse or provocation then he is guilty. “I gave him an opportunity of standing up to me as a man but he wouldn’t”. In other words, he declined to fight. His statement was – it may not be true or parts of it – he would not fight. “I gave him an opportunity of standing up to me as a man but he wouldn’t. I have had the knife some time; it was a sheath knife. I threw it down a drain when I was running through Endsleigh Gardens”. Then I think there is only one other statement of any importance, to Detective Williams “On the 6th October’ he said ‘Have you the knife there’; I said ‘No’. He said ‘Have they found it’; I said ‘I don’t think so’; he said ‘I told them I ran up Endsleigh Gardens, but come to think of it, after I did it I ran forward towards the Wanstead Park along Belgrave Road, turned up a road to the right. I am not sure whether it was Kensington Gardens where they lived or the next road then crossed over to the left side of the road, and just before I got to the top of the Cranbrook Road end I put the knife down a drain. It should easily be found.” The importance of it is that he is admitting that his was the knife, and not the woman’s that did it. He again uses the expression “when I did it”. Now, let us come to his evidence in the witness-box. It is fair, I think, that I should read it to you. The part I am going to read to you there is no dispute about. There are several meetings I pass by altogether, but Mr Whiteley did read it to you quite properly, but as that was last week I had better read it to you again. He says he bought the knife in November, 1921. As I say, gentlemen, all this as to the knife is entirely a question for you. It is pointed out that a sailor may have a knife of this sor; it is suggested that no reasonable man living in London carries a knife like that about in his pocket, and it is suggested that the mere presence of the knife is very strong evidence of his intention, a knife of that description; I think you have seen it, but you may as well take it. He says, “I bought that in November, 1921; it had a leather sheath; I took it when I went abroad; I carried it in my inside right hand overcoat pocket which I was wearing during October.” She telephoned him on the morning of October 3rd, they went to Queen Anne’s Restaurant to lunch and he met her at Fuller’s shop at 5 o’clock. “I parted with her at Aldersgate Street Station at 5.30. I then went to Mrs Graydon’s at Manor Park and I got there at half past 6 to 7. I was in the same room all the time till I left about 11 o’clock. There were four members of the Graydon family there. I had a pouch with me which was a present from Mrs Thompson.” Then there is a long discussion; I do not think I need read it to you. And then he goes on suggesting that Mrs Graydon knew the pouch had been given him by Mrs Thompson, and Mrs Graydon said “We won’t argue about it; she’s one of the best” and he replied” There is none better.” That was introduced as shewing that they were talking about Mrs Thompson. “After that I was naturally thinking of Mrs. Thompson, I was thinking she was unhappy; I wished I could help her.” (Continues reading evidence of Bywaters, page 54.)
Mr Thompson is a shipping clerk, his wife is in a millinery business, and they reside at 41 Kensington Gardens, Ilford. I stayed with them from June 18th, 1921, to the 1st August 1921. The first week that I was there, I was there as their guest and the remaining weeks I paid 25/- per week. The cause of my leaving was that Mr Thompson quarrelled with Mrs Thompson and threw her across the room – “not that he was the cause at all” [Judge’s interjection] – I thought it was a very unmanly thing to do and I interfered. We had a quarrel and he asked me to leave and I left. I had always been exceedingly good friends with Mrs Thompson. I was also on visiting terms with the mother of Mrs Thompson, a Mrs Graydon, who resides with her husband and family at 231 Shakespeare Crescent, Manor Park. After I left Mrs Thompson I went back to reside with my mother at my present address. On the 7th September 1921 I got a position as writer on board the steamship “Morea”. I sailed on the 9th September and returned to England the end of the following month. Shortly after I came back from the voyage I called on Mr and Mrs Thompson at their address. Mrs Thompson received me quite friendly, Mr Thompson a little coldly but we parted as friends. The same evening I called on Mrs Graydon and I there again saw Mr and Mrs Thompson, who were visiting her. I have never called upon Mr and Mrs Thompson since that time. I have met them once or twice at Mrs Graydon’s since, the last time being in June last. Since that date I have never seen Mr Thompson. I have met Mrs Thompson on several occasions since and always by appointment. They were verbal appointments. On Monday last I met her by appointment at 12.30 p.m. at Aldersgate Street. We went to lunch at the Queen Anne’s Restaurant, Cheapside. After lunch she returned to business and I have not seen her since – “That is to say, it was a concealment of facts” [Judge’s interjection] – Mr Thompson was not aware of all our meetings – “Do you think that is candid?” [Judge’s interjection] – but some of them he was. I have known for a very long time past that she had led a very unhappy life with him. This is also known to members of Mrs Thompson’s family – “that does not seem to be accurate” [Judge’s interjection] – . I have written to her on two occasions. I signed the letters Freddy and I addressed her as “Dear Edie.” – “I think it is obvious, as was suggested by Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett or Mr Whiteley, that that took the form of question and answer; then he goes on” [Judge’s interjection] On the evening of Monday 2nd October I called on Miss Graydon and stayed there till about 10 o’clock. I never mentioned the fact that I had lunched with Mrs Thompson that day and as far as I know Mr Thompson was not aware of it. I left my home yesterday morning about a quarter to twelve. I was dressed in the same clothes that I am now wearing. I went up West and remained there until the evening. I was alone and never met anyone that I knew. I then went to Mrs Graydon’s arriving there about 7. I left about 11 o’clock, rny impression is that it had gone 11. Before leaving I remember Mrs Graydon’s daughter Avis saying that Percy (Mr Thompson) had ’phoned her up, and I gathered from the observations she made that he was taking his wife to a theatre that night and that there were other members of the family going. – “You notice that he had heard the same evening from Mrs Thompson” [Judge’s interjection] – When I left the house I went through Browning Road, into Sibley Glove, to East Ham Railway Station. I booked to Victoria which is my usual custom. I caught a train at 11.30 p.m. and I arrived at Victoria about 12 30 a. m. I then discovered that the last train to Gypsy Hill had gone; it leaves at 12.10 a.m. I had a few pounds in money with me but I decided to walk. I went by way of Vauxhall Road, and Vauxhall Bridge, Kennington, Brixton, turning to the left into Dulwich, and then on to the Crystal Palace, and from there to my address at Upper Norwood, arriving there about 3 a.m. – “This is admittedly a tissue of misstatements” [Judge’s interjection] – I never noticed either ’bus or tram going in my direction. On arriving home I let myself in with a latchkey and went straight to my bedroom. My mother called out to me. She said “Is that you, Mick?” I replied, “Yes,” and then went to bed. I got up about 9 a.m. and about 12 I left home with my mother. I left my mother in Paternoster Row about half past two. I stayed in the City till about 5. I then went by train from Mark Lane to East Ham, and from there went on to Mrs Graydon’s, arriving there about 6. The first time that I learned that Mr Thompson had been killed was when I bought a newspaper in Mark Lane before I got into the train to go to East Ham. I am never in the habit of carrying a knife. In fact I have never had one. I never met a single person that I knew from the time that I left Mrs Graydon’s house until I arrived home. Mrs Thompson has written to me two or three times. I might have received one letter from her at home. The others I have received on board ship. I have destroyed these letters. She used to address me as “Dear Freddy “and signed herself “Peidi”. I occupy the back bedroom on the top floor at my address, and that is where I keep all my clothing. When I said that I was dressed in precisely the same clothing yesterday as I am to-day, I meant it to include my undergarments, with the exception of my collar and handkerchief, which are at home.This statement has been read over to me, is voluntary and is true. – “It is not suggested that this was anything else but an intention to deceive the police. Later on he finds out she is there, whether actually they are both together or he sees her there I do not know – there seems to be a conflict of evidence about that; it does not seem to me to make any difference. Then he says” [Judge’s interjection] –
I wish to make a voluntary statement – “that is on the 5th October, the next day. The first statement is made the same day, early in the morning of the 4th or night of the 3rd. On the 5th me makes this [Judge’s interjection] – I wish to make a voluntary statement. Mrs Edith Thompson was not aware of my movements on Tuesday night, 3rd October. I left Manor Park at 11 p.m. and proceeded to Ilford. I waited for Mrs Thompson and her husband. When near Endsleigh Gardens I pushed her to one side, also pushing him further up the street. I said to him, “You have got to separate from your wife.” He said, ‘‘No.” I said, “You will have to.” We struggled. I took my knife from my pocket and we fought and he got the worst of it. Mrs Thompson must have been spellbound for I saw nothing of her during the fight. I ran away through Endsleigh Gardens, through Wanstead, Leytonstone, Stratford; got a taxi at Stratford to Aldgate, walked from there to Fenchurch Street, got another taxi to Thornton Heath. Then walked to Upper Norwood, arriving home about 3 a.m. The reason I fought with Thompson was because he never acted like a man to his wife. He always seemed several degrees lower than a snake. I loved her and I couldnt go on seeing her leading that life. I did not intend to kill him. I only meant to injure him”. – I have already commented on that; if he stabbed him without any excuse or provocation then he is guilty. ‘I gave him an opportunity of standing up to me as a man but he wouldn’t. In other words, he declined to fight – [Judge’s interjection] I have had the knife some time ; it was a sheath knife. I threw it down a drain when I was running through Endsleigh Gardens. -Then I think there is only one other statement of any importance, to Detective Williams “On the 6th October”, he said ‘Have you the knife there”; I said ‘No’. He said ‘Have they found it?’ I said ‘I don’t think so’; he said ‘I told them I ran up Endsleigh Gardens, but come to think of it, after I did it I ran forwards towards the Wanstead Park along Belgrave Road, turn up a road to the right, I am not sure whether it was Kensington Gardens where they lived or the next road, then crossed over to the left side of the road and just before I got to the top of the Cranbrook end I put the knife down a drain. It should easily be found”. The importance of it is that he is admitting that is was the knife and not the woman’s that did it. He again uses the expression “when I did it”. Not let us come to his evidence in the witness box. It is fair, I think, that I should read it to you. The part that I am going to read to you there is no dispute about. There are several meetings that I pass by altogether, but Mr Whiteley did read it to you quite properly, but as that was last week I had better read it to you again. He says he bought the knife in November 1921. A I say, gentlemen, all this as to the knife is entirely a question for you. It is pointed out that a sailor may have a knife of this sort; it is suggested that no reasonable man living in London carries knife like that about in his pocket, and it is suggested that the mere presence of the knife is very strong evidence of his intention, a knife of that description. I think you have seen it but you may as well take it. He says “I bought that in November 1921; it had a leather sheath; I took it when I went abroad; I carried it in my inside right hand overcoat pocket which I was wearing during October”. She telephoned him on the morning od October 3rd, they went to Queen Anne’s Restaurant to lunch and her met her at Fuller’s shop at 5 o’clock. “I parted with her at Aldersgate Street Station at 5.30. I then went to Mrs Graydon’s at Manor Park and I got there at half past 6 to 7. There were four members of the Graydon family there. I had a pouch with me which was a present from Mrs Thompson”. Then there is a long discussion; I do not think I need to read it to you. And then he goes on suggesting that Mrs Graydon knew the pouch had been given by Mrs Thompson and Mrs Graydon said “We won’t argue about it; she’s one of the best” and he replied “There is none better”. That was introduced as showing that they were talking about Mrs Thompson. After that I was naturally thinking of Mrs Thompson. I was thinking she was unhappy; I wished I could help her. That was the trend of my thoughts all the way to the East Ham station. When I arrived at East Ham station I thought Oh, I don’t want to go home; I feel too miserable. I want to see Mrs Thompson; I want to see if I can help her. I turned round by the East Ham station and walked in the direction of Ilford. I knew they would be together and I thought perhaps, if I was to see them I might be able to make things a bit better and come to an amicable understanding for a separation or a divorce. I arrived at Ilford station and crossed over the railway bridge turning down York Road into Belgrave Road. I walked for some time and some distance ahead I saw Mr and Mrs Thompson and overtook them in front. Mrs Thompson was against the wall on the right. I was behind them; I overtook them and I pushed Mrs Thompson with my right hand and with my left hand I held Thompson and caught him by the back of his coat and pushed him along the street, swinging him round. I said to him, “Why don’t you get a divorce or separation, you cad?” He said “I know that is what you want but I am not going to give it to you; it would make it too pleasant for both of you.” I said “You take a delight in making Edie’s life a hell.” He said “I’ve got her. I’ll keep her and I will keep her and I will shoot you.” As he said that he thumped me in the chest with his left hand and I said “Oh, will you? ” and drew a knife and put it in his arm.” You recollect there as a bruise on the arm, showing there was one blow. “When his arm was put up before I took my knife he made an action of putting his right hand behind his back” – then he indicated it – “because I thought I was going to be killed, I thought he was going to shoot me if he had the opportunity, and I tried to stop him. I had a knife in my left hand, it got there somehow and I did not see her again. She may have been 10 miles away. I them ran away and that is what happened.”
I had spoken to Mr Thompson about this on two previous occasions only, in August and September of the previous year.
Now, gentlemen, that is his case and that is the whole of the evidence with regard to it. Nobody questions that he inflicted those wounds, and now I think with regard to him you will have quite a simple task to arrive at your decision. First of all – and here again I am going to say something about the law – it is the law that if you intentionally kill, intentionally, you are guilty of murder, but if you kill a person in legitimate self-defence, that is what is called “justifiable homicide.” It is said by the Prosecution that this story that he attempted to shoot him – we know, as a matter of fact, the policeman Geal said there was no weapon or pistol of any kind on the man; he was killed when he was brought in. All of them say – all of the witnesses who were called – that, except for the stabs and the cuts there was no sign of a struggle on Mr Thompson’s clothing. It is said on behalf of the Prosecution, after telling the stories that he knew nothing about it and did not have a knife, the man then told the story which I have already mentioned to you, that he would not have a fight, that it was a struggle and not a single word about this story about going to him and asking for a separation, not a single word about the suggestion that he was going to shoot him. And it is said that this is just a tale like other tales that are put up by prisoners in any crime. The Prosecution say it is a story which no reasonable jury would think of believing; it is contradicted by the facts of the wounds themselves; it never appears at all till he is put in the witness box and it is such a story that you are entitled to reject entirely. If you think that is the truth you are entitled to acquit him altogether. He says that Thompson hit him and, if you believe that Thompson made an unprovoked attack upon him and he only inflicted these stabs in self-defence, you will acquit him altogether. If you think it is a fabrication from beginning to end you will reject it. I will not say anything more about it.
There is something which requires a little consideration. It is said that if it is not that you can reduce this murder to manslaughter. Now, gentlemen, I am telling you the law, you may take it from me. I am not speaking of facts, that is for you to decide and not for me. It is the law if a man, although intentionally in the heat of blood kills somebody when he has had provocation, then the jury may, if you think that this provocation was the only thing that started the murderous impulse – then you can reduce it to manslaughter. A man may flog you with a whip and, if you happen to have a pistol, and you take it out and shoot him, the jury may say the provocation was made; he never intended to shoot him – or he takes out his knife. But that is a matter which you have to regard with great consideration. First of all, no evidence of any provocation at all – it is inconceivable that it would be any provocation for a man to say, if he knew he said it “I will not allow you to run away with my wife”; it is quite conceivable that is not provocation. Provocation means blows or violence. But then, in the middle of this story, he says “he hit me in the chest and then he put his hand behind; he provoked me.” I have dealt with the question of self-defence but was there a blow at all? Is there any injury to this man or to his clothing? His own story is, “I wanted to fight him, I waited for him” – he has got a knife, as we know in his pocket – “I waited for him and he would not fight ”; and then, in his second statement, where he says he looked upon him as a snake – “The reason I fought with Thompson was because he never acted like a man to his wife. He always seemed several degrees lower than a snake. I loved her and I could not go on seeing her leading that life.” Now, gentlemen, what is said by the Prosecution is that there never was any provocation at all. It is said that the true story is that he came at him from behind, whether he waited for him or whether he caught him up, he caught him up quietly – “I waited for him” – from behind. As regards Mrs Thompson’s story that you are entitled to take into consideration; it does not help him very much, and there is one other thing that I also wish to mention to you as regards him. Just some slight piece of evidence as regards Mrs Thompson. She says she was pushed aside and fainted and became senseless. I am going to deal with that when I deal with her, but when she says she did recover she saw a scuffle going on equally consistent with a man who was defending himself – I mean if the story is true at all – equally consistent. She does not say in the least that there was any conversation. Here, again, in fact, her evidence that she was pushed violently aside does not look like what Bywaters said, that he went up there to have an amicable discussion with him about divorce – Very odd – “we could have an amicable discussion” if is true he pushed the lady so violently as to knock her head against the wall and render her, according to her view – I am not saying her evidence is true, I am only saying what was her evidence, and I will call your attention to it – senseless. There is, I think, only one other person who can throw any light on the matter and he is a man who was called, and he lived at a house somewhere opposite and it was five minutes before he came out, and he heard Mrs Thompson in a piteous tone say, “Oh, don’t, oh, don’t”. We will deal with that when we come to Mrs Thompson’s case. It seems to me one cannot help saying rather to contradict the story. Mrs Thompson was rather contradicting the story that she did not see what was going on. But, if you believe it, and if Mrs Thompson was looking on, it does not help the prisoner, and you may think it rather points to her seeing the murder. That is the story for the Prosecution, but it is entirely for you, and that is the whole of the evidence.
Now, gentlemen, I shall have to speak at a little more length; I shall have to read some of the letters when I am dealing with the woman’s case. Now, may I just add this: if you think that he really did this because he quite innocently had the knife and never thought of doing anything until he got there, or he did it because of this story which appears in the witness box, he thought he was going to be shot and he did it in reasonable self-protection and he inflicted these stabs – if you think that you will acquit him altogether. You will consider this matter very carefully if you think it was an intentional murder. If you think there is any foundation whatever for the story that there was an assault – he says “We struggled but he would not fight” – that is no provocation. In his second account he says “He hit me in the chest”. If you think that is a mere defence put up in order to escape retribution for what he had done and dismiss that, then you will find him guilty of murder.
I have only one other matter to say to you with regard to this and, of course, it is my duty to say so at some time, and I will say it now. Of course, you know this is a man of good character. Sometimes evidence of this sort is put up – I am saying it quite frankly – because it is said “Here is a young man; we are sorry for him; let us do something for him.” Gentlemen, you know as well as I do if you are satisfied that this was a murder neither with you nor with me rests (you know perfectly well if you find him guilty of murder what a sentence I must pronounce, I never keep it back from the jury) – you know as well as I do that the prerogative of mercy, which is in other hands, does not rest with me nor you, and even if you really think him a young and honest person and that he lost his head altogether, if you think that he was inflamed by sexual provocation – the real truth of the matter is that he went out with the knife, put it in his pocket in order to kill this man — went out and did kill this man and struck him from behind, as said by the Prosecution without any provocation whatever — if you are satisfied of it, then, however unpleasant your duty is, you must give effect to it. That is the only way I can help you with regard to him, and, after the adjournment, I will deal with the case of the female prisoner.
Adjourned for a short time (Bailiffs being sworn).
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Gentlemen, I now turn to the case of Mrs Thompson, a case which I have no doubt you will carefully and conscientiously consider, being desirous of doing real justice. Of course, if you should find that this was not a murder at all, there is an end of the matter. If there never was any intention by the man to do it or if he never premeditated it, in the sense that he only did it because he was provoked by a blow — if you believe the story that he was struck by a blow and that so excited him, but he did something that he had no thought of doing before and did not come there to do in fact, it is a manslaughter, not murder, and there is an end of the matter, because the lady cannot be convicted of doing something which was done under provocation and never designed. If you think it is a murder, then comes the question, is this lady a party to it.
Now, I am going to ask you to consider only one question in your deliberations and that is, was it an arranged thing between the woman and the man. No doubt – I quite accept the law of the learned Solicitor General that if you hire an assassin and say: Here is money, and there is a bargain between them, that the assassin shall go out and murder the man when he can, the person who hires the assassin is guilty of the murder — it is plain common sense. I also accept the proposition that if a woman says to a man, “I want this man murdered; you promise me to do it,” and he then promises her, and she believing that he is going to keep his promise as soon as he gets an opportunity, goes out believing that he is genuine – no joke about it that he is genuine – that he goes out and murders someone, then she also is guilty of murder. She is just as much guilty of murder if she sets loose an assassin as if she fires an arrow at a distance which pierces somebody’s heart. But I do not think that is quite the case you have got to consider here, because I have no doubt if you are satisfied there was a promise by the man to do it when he could, and they met at half-past five in the afternoon – I am putting to you what I think is common sense, although it is for you to judge – at half-past five she leaves him, telling him where she is going and that she was coming back with her husband in the evening. If you think it was no surprise to her when she saw him that evening, and if you think that when she saw him there that evening he came there under her direction, under her information that she would be there about that time, and that he was waiting there for their arrival under her direction and information that she had given him as to where she would be about that time — if you think she knew perfectly well as soon as she set eyes on him he was there to murder, she is guilty of the murder too, because he was doing it under her direction with the hand that she was guiding. If you think he had that knife in his pocket intending to murder — of course this question only arises if you think he had that knife in his pocket intending to murder that man that evening — and if you think she knew that he had it, I think it necessarily follows she would know that he was going to do it that evening. That is what I submit to you. Therefore I think the only case I am going to ask you to consider is this, was she a party already to the murder in that sense, that she was aiding and abetting it? The words are pretty plain. “Aiding and abetting” means, giving a help to the murderer, if it actually took place, and here it is that what I may call the necessary absence of evidence makes these letters of so much importance. Of course you will understand that if two people agree to murder anybody they do not make that agreement when anybody is listening. If they agree the murder is sure to take place, it will not take place if there is anybody looking on, and therefore it follows that when it is committed — if you think it has been committed — there should be no witnesses present and therefore it follows and necessarily follows that in every case of such a description you have to infer from what is called circumstantial evidence, and you cannot have anything else. It rarely happens by accident — except by a fortunate accident in the course of justice — that a murder is committed when anybody is there to see it, and you have to gather from the evidence — and the short case for the prosecution is this — it really is a short case – I know when you have letters the jury wait to hear what the judge says about the letters, and therefore, I will have to go into some of these again. The short case for the Prosecution is this, that for months these people had been corresponding, and for months this lady — we are only considering her case — had been writing to this man, inciting him to murder. I will deal with the letters and deal with her explanations later on. It was suggested that she was always writing to him and when he came back, the moment he came back, there were these frequent clandestine meetings — I am not going to remind you of what I said about these meetings, being clandestine meetings, it is for you to judge, but I have given you a view which you may or may not accept; but I repeat, and must repeat in regard to her explanation, that she had been frequently talking to him about separation or divorce. If you think these letters are genuine, the letters in fact mean what they say, that she is involved in a continual practice of deceit; it obviously is that she was concealing the fact of her connection with him and not reiterating it with requests for him to let her go. That is for you, and not for me. I must also repeat what I say about the surrounding circumstances. Probably you will think that it is the fact that if she ran away with Bywaters she thought she might lose her position, and having lost her position there was nothing to live upon. It may have been if he could have found a nice billet for her, nobody would dispute that a good deal of the evidence would be true, but is it conclusive, and is it what they were writing about? They probably could discuss points between them, as reasonable people, “Another way out of the difficulty is can we run away and be comfortable and be prosperous somewhere or other”. They would no doubt talk about that, and it would be extremely strange if they did not. The only question is was that what they were talking about in these letters. It is equally clear that if Providence should have removed the husband by a heart attack then they could have married and they could have kept their positions, and the way was clear. The Prosecution say that that was of enormous weight and one of the things that they were from time to time discussing, and it is said that they discussed it backwards and forwards in their letters. I am just going to refer you to some of those letters in which they discussed it, and it is said having discussed it backwards and forwards in their letters, if you think that it was a certainty they discussed it when he came back, and talked of what they would do in the future, it is said those letters not only throw a light upon the motive of the man and upon the motive of the woman, but they also throw a light upon the intention of their actions on the particular day, and particularly the intention of her actions.
Now let us turn to the letters. Again, I am sure you will not think that I am taking any side in this matter; if you think I am taking any side in this matter, as I said, you know as well as I do you can disagree with me without giving offence to me or anybody else; it is entirely a matter for you. I am anxious not to take a side, but if you think any of my opinions jump out in anything that I say, you will be perfectly at liberty to disregard them, because it is for you to decide it, because you are much better judges than I am. I do not want you to think if I got into portions of the letters, that I am asking you to disregard the explanation of the letters. You will consider them very carefully. You will not consider that I am giving all the arguments on one side or the other.
I am going to read you certain extracts from the letters which support the contention that these parties were writing to one another. Of course as regards the letters, the point against him is that he received them, and therefore may have been incited by them. All her letters — the letters from her — only breathe this insensate silly affection; they do not seem to help us very much that way. We are not now considering his case, but all these letters are written by her, and therefore they are evidence against her. It is said by the prosecution that from beginning to end of these letters she is seriously considering and inciting the man to assist her to poison her husband, and if she did that and if you find that within a week or two after he came back the poisoning is considered no longer possible, he has no longer studied or has not studied bi-chloride of mercury, but has read “Belladonna ” without seeing how “Belladonna ” can be of any use to him, they would naturally turn to some other means of effecting their object, and it is said to you they naturally would, when you find them meeting day after day, parting at half-past five, meeting the husband at six, and she telling him where they were going, and he immediately, as soon as he gets an opportunity, if you believe he waited for them coming back and knew they were there — gentlemen, you may say here are circumstances following the long-studied incitement for him to help her to poison. The moment he came back the daily meetings, clandestine meetings, whenever there is an opportunity of meeting, and a meeting which only finishes when there was a discussion in the tea room. He walks with her to the station and parts with her half an hour before she meets her husband, and she then goes off with her husband. He clearly was waiting for the 11.30 train to Ilford — that is not disputed. He is there looking for them, knowing when they are coming. The evidence so far as it goes as to what was said at the house is that they were out at the theatre, and no more. He knew what train they were coming down by, although it is probably the natural train for anybody going to the theatre and returning, and it is suggested when you find that is followed by a meeting within five or six hours of their parting and the man, if you believe it, assassinated — he was struck and he struggled there, then you are entitled to assume – it is entirely for you to say whether you are satisfied – you are entitled to assume that she sped him on his errand, that when she saw him at any rate she knew he was coming and knew what he was after; that she, as soon as it was done — it is said by the prosecution — she steadily told lies and concealed the whole of the facts. It is on that you are asked to draw the conclusion – you will not draw it unless you are satisfied, and if you are satisfied you will draw it; and there is the whole matter.
Now, let us look at the letters. I am sure you know them and you recollect the whole of them. On page 4 you will find this in the middle of the page “Yesterday I met a woman who had lost three husbands in eleven years and not through the war, two were drowned and one committed suicide and some people I know cannot lose one. How unfair everything is.” And then she breaks off. Page 13 — I am not going to comment, I am only going to call your attention to the facts; “I had the wrong porridge today but I don’t suppose it will matter, I don’t seem to care much either way. You’ll probably say I’m careless and I admit I am, but I don’t care, do you. I gave way this week to him.” Of course you know these letters, as was quite properly pointed out, are full of the outpourings of a silly but, at the same time, wicked affection. There are all sorts of things in the letters, other than alluding to poison and many other things which I am not going to refer to, but mostly cases of affection and love – other matters that I have already commented on which I believe to be matters of that description. On page 14 there is: “You know, darlint, I am beginning to think I have gone wrong in the way I manage this affair. I think perhaps it would have been better had I acquiesced in everything he said and did or wanted to do. At least it would have disarmed any suspicion he might have and that would have been better if we have to use drastic measures darlint — understand? Anyway so much for him. I’ll talk about someone else.” Is that talking about divorce or is that talking about drastic measures — measures for removing him? On page 20 there is this incident, you know, about his taking too much of some medicine. On page 20, half way down -“Some one he knows in town (not the man I previously told you about) had given him a prescription for a draught of insomnia and he’d had it made up and taken it and it made him ill. He certainly looked ill and his eyes were glassy. I’ve hunted for the said prescription everywhere and can’t find it and asked him what he had done with it and he said the chemist kept it.” Of course it is suggested she wanted to get rid of the prescription. “I told Avis about the incident only I told her” (look at these words) — “as if it frightened and worried me ” — not that it had frightened her, but she pretended it to convey that; and you will have to consider in a good many of these things whether she was genuine or acting. “I told Avis about the incident, only I told her as if it frightened and worried me as I thought perhaps it might be useful at some future time that I had told somebody.” It is said she is already preparing for witnesses in case there should be a murder case; that is what is said. Then “It would be so easy darlint — if I had things — I do hope I shall. How about cigarettes?” Then the next letter is an extract: “Death from hyoscine poisoning, but how it was administered there is no sufficient evidence to show.” (That is on page 22). You have got a list if all these things which are in these extracts, and you can judge them at their proper weight. Page 24 there is another one: “Ground glass in box ” — I only allude to it because somebody else alluded to it. Then page 27: “However for that glorious state of existence I suppose we must wait for another three or four months. Darlint, I am glad you succeeded, oh so glad I can’t explain, when your note came I didn’t know how to work at all — all I kept thinking of was your success — and my ultimate success I hope. I suppose it isn’t possible for you to send it to me — not at all possible.” Now, it is suggested he had written to her you know — at any rate she understood he had written to her saying “I have got something that would poison him or make him ill.” “I suppose it is impossible for you to send it to me.” She in her answer you will recollect says: “He was to send something to make him ill, and I never intended to do it, although I said that to him.” He said in his answer it meant “letters.” Then on page 28: “Darlingest boy. This thing that I am going to do for both of us, will it ever – at all – make any difference between us darlint, do you understand what I mean. Will you ever think any less of me, not now I know, darlint, but later on, perhaps some years hence, do you think you will feel any different because of this thing that I shall do.” And it is said the meaning of that is for you to judge; you will fully understand it is not for me to tell you what the letters mean; you are the judges of that, not I; there is no law about it whatever. It is said the meaning of that is, “If I poison him is it going to make any difference to you afterwards”; that is what is suggested is the plain meaning of the words.
Page 31: “I’m not going to talk to you any more” – it begins just above “Why do you say to me ‘ never run away, face things and argue and beat everybody.’ Do I ever run away? Have I ever run away? and do you think I should be likely to now? That’s twice this trip, something you have said has hurt. You will have to kiss all that hurt away — ’cos it does really hurt — it’s not sham darlint. I’m not going to talk to you any more — I can’t and I don’t think I have shirked have I? except darlint to ask you again to think out all the plans and methods for me and wait and wait so anxiously now — for the time when we’ll be with each other — even tho’ it’s only once — for ‘one little hour,’ our kind of hour, not the song kind. And just to tell you Peidi loves you always.” On page 34 she is referring to a lot of books you will see in the list: “I think the ‘red hair’ one is true in parts — you tell me which parts darlint. The Kempton cutting may be interesting if it is to be the same method.” Then a little lower down on the same page “Will you be ready with every little detail when I see you, because you know more about this thing than I do, and I am relying on you for all plans and instructions, only just the act I am not. The next page, 35, “Why not go to 231 darlint, I think you ought to go as usual, it would be suspicious if you stopped away without a reason known to them, and there is no reason is there? You have not fallen out with Bill, have you? What about Dr Wallis’s case, you said it was interesting, but you did not discuss it with me. Darlint, about making money, yes we must somehow, and what does it matter how, when we have accomplished that one thing, we are going to live entirely for ourselves and not study anyone except ourselves.”
Page 39: “This time really will be the last you will go away — like things are won’t it? We said it before darlint I know, and we failed — but there will be no failure this next time darlint, there mustn’t be — I’m telling you — wherever it is — if it’s to sea — I’m coming too, and if it’s to nowhere — I’m also coming darlint. You’ll never leave me behind again, never, unless things are different.” Now, it is said that the meaning of that is if we get married you can go on your voyage and leave me behind, but if he is still alive I am coming away with you.”
Page 48. “Don’t keep this piece” — this is said to be important – “Don’t keep this piece” – that is at the top – “About the marconigram, — do you mean one saying Yes or No, because I shan’t send it darlint I’m not going to try anymore until you come back.” What does that mean? “I made up my mind about this last Tuesday. He was telling his mother etc. the circumstances of my ‘Sunday morning escapade’ and he puts great stress on the fact of the tea tasting bitter, ‘as if something had been put in it’ he says. Now I think whatever else I try it in again will still taste bitter — he will recognise it, and be more suspicious still, and if the quantity is still not successful – it will injure any chance I may have of trying when you come home.” The date of that letter, if you look at it again, is April. He says: “At some time in March I gave her something which he says was quinine, and she says she does not know what it was. It is suggested the plain meaning of that is she tried that and failed. He says whatever it was it was only quinine but she does not know what it was.
On page 51: “I used the light bulb three times, but the third time he found a piece so I have given it up until you come home.” Of course you know her explanation is that this was merely — I don’t know what word to call it — swank — to show what a heroic person she was; that she was prepared to do all sorts of things which she was not in fact doing, and his explanation was always to exculpate her, and to say she was a melodramatic being. You will give what weight you think to it. Whether she gave all she said she did, or whether she only gave some of what she said she did, or gave nothing at all — his explanation was to exculpate her. Her explanation as given by THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL this morning is that “He did send things which I was to give to my husband to make him ill, but I did not do it”; in other words she said “He was expecting me to; I was not inciting him.” Gentlemen, in this case we are only judging her, her case. I am saying you may disregard her or you may think it true, but of course you will bear in mind that in that she is exculpating herself and saying the man is the wicked person; he sent me these things, and I did not pay any attention to him. When I wrote to him he thought I was trying to poison my husband, because to give him something when he has a bad heart is to poison him, and she says, “I kept it up and never undeceived him”. Then on page 57: “I don’t think we are failures in other things, and we mustn’t be in this. We mustn’t give up as we said. No, we shall have to wait if we fail again. Darlint, Fate cannot always turn against us and if it is we must fight it — You and I are strong now, we must be stronger. We must learn to be patient. We must have each other darlint. It’s meant to be, I know I feel it is, because I love you such a lot — such a love was not meant to be in vain. It will come right I know one day, if not by our efforts some other way. We’ll wait, eh darlint, and you’ll try and get some money and then we can go away and not worry about anybody or anything. You said it was enough for an elephant” and he admits you know he did say either in letters or by words that 30 grains of quinine were enough for an elephant— why an elephant should want 30 grains of quinine I do not know, or whether his explanation is true, or what she was writing that she had not succeeded) — “perhaps, it was, but you don’t allow for the taste making only a small quantity to be taken. It sounded like a reproach; was it meant to be.” On the next page: “I was buoyed up with the hope of the ‘light bulb’ and I used a lot – big pieces too – not powdered – and it has no effect I quite expected to be able to send that cable — but no — nothing has happened from it.” Now, what is the cable? She says the cable was a cable stating she was going to get a divorce. It is not for me to say anything to you, but it is suggested that the cable was his death. “and now your letter tells me about the bitter taste again. Oh darlint, I do feel so down and unhappy.” Then she says: “Wouldn’t the stuff make small pills coated together with soap and dipped in licourice powder — like Beecham’s. Try while you’re away.” It is said that is asking him there to produce some poison with which they could poison this man without being discovered. “Our boy had to have his thumb operated on because he had a piece of glass in it; that’s what made me try that method again, but I suppose as you say he is not normal. I know I feel I shall never get him to take a sufficient quantity of anything bitter.” Then she says: “No I haven’t forgotten the key I told you before.” Then on the next page again “You tell me not to leave finger marks on the box — do you know I did not think of the box, but I did think of the glass or cup, whatever was used.” She says it is true he did write to me and ask me not to put finger marks on the box. Why finger marks? It is suggested by the prosecution that if this man is poisoned, and there is a trial, finger marks would display on the box who has handled the poison. “Do experiment with the pills while you are away.”
Then page 66: “It must be remembered that digitalin is a cumulative poison, and that the same dose, harmless if taken once, yet frequently repeated, becomes deadly.” There should be no hurry about a trial of this description. I do not think you should bother much about what is in the book called “Bella Donna.” The only point about it is, it is the case of a woman — nobody suggested she was like this woman, or the man was like this man. It is the case admitted on oath by herself, that there is at the end of the book somebody poisoning her husband, or trying to poison her husband. “It must be remembered that digitalin is a cumulative poison, and that the dose harmless if taken once, yet frequently repeated, becomes deadly.” And there is this remarkable statement: “The above passage I have just come across in a book I am reading, ‘Bella Donna’ by Robert Hichens. Is it any use? That is page 66. “I’d like you to read ‘Bella Donna’ first, you will learn something from it to help us; then you can read the ‘Fruitful Vine.’” No doubt the letter about the “Fruitful Vine” was something similar; they write chiefly about so-called heroes and heroines, probably wicked people, which no doubt accounts for a great many of these tragedies. Page 98: “Why aren’t you sending me something — I wanted you to — you never do what I ask you darlint — you still have your own way always. If I don’t mind the risk why should you?” Page 99, the next page. After the rest comes this: “Have you studied bi-chloride of mercury?” In answer to my question we were told it is what is called a corrosive sublimate, a poison with which those who unfortunately have to come to these Courts have to deal with. Then we come to this last letter at the end of September, page 121. It is quite obvious that that bit refers to a meeting, and, of course, quite properly, THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL asked a question which was fully answered, and much point was made of it. It is no point in the case now:” Do not forget what we talked of in the tea room; I will still risk and try if you will,” and it is said it is poison or it is the dagger. “We have got many things to consider; shall we run away if we can get the money, or shall we try poison. We will talk it over.”
I think there is one other letter which I might refer you to, page 123, although the date we do not know. “I know what you say is really true, but darlint it does feel sometimes that we are drifting. Don’t you ever feel like that — and it hurts so —and it burst me so – ever so much. Yes, we are both going to fight until we win — darlint, fight hard, in real earnest, — you are going to help me first, and then I am going to help you, and when you have done your share and I have done mine, we shall have given to each other what we both ‘ desire most in this world’ ourselves, isn’t this right, but darlint don’t fail in your share of the bargain because I am helpless without your help, — you understand.” That is certainly earlier in the year, some time before this took place, but there it is.
I would be wanting in my duty if I did not plainly explain to you that the meaning of these letters is entirely for you, and to say do they form a very strong case, that she is asking him clearly for his assistance to remove and murder her husband by the administration of poison. With regard to some of the statements, if they are accurate, they shew that she administered it, but the important part of it is that they were plotting and planning, and you have heard her explanation, and her explanation is that she did it – you have heard her explanation; that she did it because it was to please him, to show how devoted she was to him. His story was: I thought she advised me to do it, suggested I should do it, but I thought, it was all vapour — melodrama. You bear in mind the force of those explanations but it is a strong case for your consideration that on each of those voyages while he was away they are discussing the removal of her husband by poison, and it is said again, and I do not like to repeat myself, that that throws light, not only on the motive of what he did, but it throws light on their intentions and their actions in what happened.
The rest is short. You will consider, in saying whether you are satisfied, what was done before; they met frequently; they met, as you know – you are considering her case now – and only parted at about half past 5 that afternoon, and at half past 12 that night Thompson is lying dead and killed by the dagger of somebody. You have seen the weapon; I call it a dagger; it is a weapon that has to be seized with the fist — it is a stabbing weapon — you have seen it and you have got it. Where is it done? Is it by accident that he comes up to her? All we know about that is that they were talking about a dance and she was next to the wall. I am not dealing with his case; I have done with it. It certainly is in a lonely road which is obviously the direct way home, but it is in a road with no houses on the front except the house of one of the witnesses who I am going to call attention to, and the back of other houses, and you have the circumstances of the killing which I mentioned to you when I was dealing with the other case. That is all we know. It is suggested by the Prosecution that the moment she saw him there she expected him and they ask you to be satisfied, they ask you to believe, that she saw it done. What evidence is there of that? She denies it. Of course, there is no other evidence.
There is one other very curious piece of evidence to which I want to call your attention, and that is the evidence of Mr. Webber. He says he heard a noise and these are his words; he heard those words; “Oh, don’t, oh, don’t” in piteous tones. You know he is some way off; I am not saying it is true; it is for you to say whether it is accurate, or whether it is imaginary or whether he has made a mistake but there is the evidence. The voice was Mrs Thompson’s. “It was 3 or 5 minutes before I came out and then I heard the doctor ask had he been ill.” Now, of course, again it is for you to say, if you believe that, what the words mean “Oh, don’t, oh, don’t” in piteous tones and it is made use of by her counsel as shewing that she objected to the murder and was saying “Don’t.” Well, a remark of force, but it is a double-edged weapon, this evidence, if you think it is accurate, because if you think it means that when she saw him being stabbed or saw one of the stabs, she said “Don’t, don’t” it means that she was looking on and she saw it all. It is incompatible if she she was senseless and only recovered — you know her story, I need not go into that matter again – she was pushed aside and only saw, you know as well as I do the story given in evidence and I need not repeat it – her story was she was pushed aside; I am only considering her case – she was damaged by a fall as she says, by a fall, and there is independent evidence that she had a bruise. That does not prove how the bruise was give, but her story is that she knew nothing of it. She saw some scuffling a little way down and she saw the back of the man running away, knowing who he was. Of course, if that is so, it is incompatible if she was saying “Don’t, don’t” and she saw the blows struck – if she is pushed against the wall she may have said “Don’t, don’t”. I think it is entirely for you — I will not argue that. Of course, you will bear in mind that, if you think that is true, the fact that she was saying “Don’t, don’t” at the end of it, would not protect her if she had summoned the man there and was only horrified when she saw the deed and that he had compassed it. These are things which will appeal to you or anybody else; you will weigh them; but if you believe them you are in this difficulty that it makes you disbelieve at once the whole of her evidence that she did not see it and, indeed, if you think, knowing what these wounds are like and what happened, it is almost incredible that she should not have seen what happened. It is a remarkable story for you to believe: that the sudden push against the wall rendered her senseless and stupefied. That is the story.
It is said by the Prosecution he is trying to protect her and that is all we know as to anything before the man died; after the man died I am going to read you every word because you can gather everything just as when it is a question whether somebody has stolen a bag and a policeman comes up and says, what do you mean. It is a very different thing if he is seen running away and only captured after running a mile and a half. In other words, it is always relevant to see what is done before and after the deed. It is said by the Prosecution that it was arranged he should run away and she should go to the doctor. It is said that their letters are suggesting they were arranging how to avoid suspicion when it was done and the letters bear that out. Now were they; do they bear that out? I am going to read them to you because you have got to recollect this, that all the witnesses say she was very agitated; some of the witnesses say she did not know what she was saying. I am going to call your attention – I should be lacking in my duty if I did not – that from beginning to end until even within two months after this has happened she is alleging the man is not telling the truth; is she lost mental or moral control it was not to the extent of telling the truth. If you think she had seen the whole of it and knew all about it, of course, she knew that there was stabbing and was crying out “Oh, oh” and when she saw the blow said “Don’t, don’t”, she knew that he was stabbed. If you believe her story that she was pushed and senseless she saw the man before he went away, and this in succession – I am going to give you the whole of it – is what she said afterwards. The witness, Doris [sic passim] Pittard, is called, and she says this: “I saw the woman running, and she met her and said ‘Oh, my God, will you help me, my husband is ill, he is bleeding.’ I asked when it happened and she said “I cannot tell you, when I turned to speak to him blood was pouring out of his mouth.” That is the account of Doris Pittard. Not a word of anything more: “He is ill.” You have got to consider whether this was genuine, or acting a part of the prearranged plan; whether it was out of control. All the witnesses agree that she was in a state of great agitation. Give what weight you think to that. Percy Cleveley says she said her husband had fallen down. In cross-examination of Doris Pittard she said she was running hard, she wanted help for her husband; that was the cross-examination. Percy Cleveley said she said her husband had fallen down, she wanted help; he was ill, “I want to find a doctor.” “I asked her how it had happened. She said someone brushed past and he fell down”; not a word about another man. She asked for help and she ran on in front and she was agitated. John Webber says this: I have read part of it and I will read it again because I want you to have the whole of it. He heard these words “Oh, don’t, don’t,” in piteous tones and then I asked the distance off – or somebody asked the distance off – and it was the corner house, the next corner of the road. “The voice was Mrs Thompson’s. I said had he been ill and she said “No, he had been to the Criterion” – that is the doctor who asked had he been ill. Dr. Maudsley says, “I asked the woman whether the man had been ill and she said no. I said ‘he is dead.’ She said ‘Why didn’t you come sooner and save him.’ I said “Has he been under any medical man”, she said ‘No, he often complained but did not have one’” and he said he did not see the wounds, in other words, if you think that she had seen the stabbing she is leaving the doctor in ignorance and under the impression that he was ill. Those are the only four strangers who saw her. The rest are police officers. The first is Walter Mew. He said I went with her to her home. On the way she said, ‘will he come back;’ I said, ‘Yes.’ She said, ‘They will blame me for this.’” There is no cross-examination about her statement. Then there is police constable Walter Grimes. He said “I asked her, ‘Are you in the habit of carrying a knife’; she said ‘No.’ I am not quite certain, I have not got those words in my mind but I have it on the depositions, I do not know whether you can help me. “I said ‘Did you or your husband see or speak to any person’” – that was asked. “I said ‘Did you carry’” – then I have got down “she said ‘I cannot explain what happened; I do not know; I only know he dropped down and said, ‘Oh er’; I mean groaned or made an exclamation of pain’” – perhaps I had better leave it at that. Then the next person that same night, you know, or soon afterwards, is his brother, Richard Halliday Thompson. He said, “She was very agitated. I knew he was dead. I said ‘What has happened?’ She said ‘He was walking along and he suddenly became queer and said ‘Oo-er’” — that is how they wrote it down, nobody has actually given us what it is. “She said he complained of pains in his leg on the way to the station. She said she went for a doctor, and the doctor said he died from haemorrhage. I think that is the last. These are all the statements I think until we come to the statements she makes to the police.
Now, gentlemen, you will doubtless bear in mind this, that all the witnesses say she is agitated; it is perfectly clear that she is concealing the truth on her own shewing, if she knew that the man was there. Everybody, the strangers, thought that he was ill, and she keeps them in that opinion —if you think that she saw the crime and she saw the stabs from beginning to end – everybody she meets from the time she starts to the doctor to the time she comes back. There is a series of deceptions as to the real facts of the case, if she knew that, and it is said by the Prosecution you cannot call witnesses to show what they did and what they were planning beforehand; but you can shew from beginning to end the woman is telling what is not true. It is said on the other side she said that because she was wanting to shield the man. You will give what weight you think to it; there it is. Was she really out of her mind, or had she sufficient sense to know, whether agitated or not — I can well imagine that — she was carefully concealing what, had happened. It is not decisive but you are entitled to weigh that as a fact, with all the other circumstances of the case.
Now we come to the statements. The important evidence is Inspector Hall and this is the gist of his evidence; at 11 a. m. the next morning he said he told her who he was and he said “I understand you were with your husband early this morning in Belgrave Road, I am satisfied that he was assaulted and stabbed several times”. She said, ‘We were coming along Belgrave Road and just past the corner of Endsleigh Gardens when I heard him call out ‘Oh er’ and he fell up against me. I put out my arms to save him and found blood which I thought was coming from his mouth. I tried to hold him up. He staggered for several yards towards Kensington Gardens and then fell against the wall and slid down. He did not speak to me. I cannot say if I spoke to him. I felt him and found his clothing wet with blood. He never moved after he fell. We had no quarrel on the way, we were quite happy together. Immediately I saw the blood I ran across the road to a doctors. I appealed to a lady and a gentleman who were passing and the gentleman also went to the doctors. The doctor came and told me my husband was dead. Just before he fell down I was walking on his right hand side on the inside of the pavement nearest the wall. We were side by side. I did not see anybody about at the time. My husband and I were talking about going to a dance.’” That is her statement. That is on the 11th, the next day, and she is obviously concealing a great deal of what she knew. She is taken through a room and she sees that they have arrested Bywaters or, at any rate, that Bywaters is in the police station. As soon as she sees him at the window she said, “Oh God! oh God, what can I do, why did he do it, I did not want him to do it:” Now there, again, look at these statements. I do not want to and you must not use that against Bywaters; it has nothing to do with him. But again it is noticeable that she is throwing the blame on him, “Why did he do it”, and she is excusing herself. Then she makes certain statements. Now these statements are reduced into writing, there are two of them. Before I come to them there is one other witness, Mrs. Lester. Mrs. Lester says that that morning the prisoner said to her “They have taken him away from me. If they would allow me to go to him I could make him better” — quite incomprehensible, you know, and carrying out the fact of the notion that she did not know he was dead. Do you think she did not know he was dead or what had happened? At any rate, you have that; that is the statement she made. Then the first statement, the first long statement they took from her runs as follows:
My husband’s name is Percy Thompson. He is a shipping clerk employed by Messrs. O. J. Parker & Co., Peel House, Eastcheap, E.C. I am employed by Carlton & Prior, Millinery Manufacturers, 168 Aldersgate Street, E.C., as a book-keeper. We have been married six years and have no family. We were married in the beginning of the year 1916. In that year my husband joined the London Scottish Regiment, he was discharged as medically unfit a few months later and did no foreign service. I have always been on affection [sic: Young: on affectionate terms] with my husband. I remember Tuesday, 3rd October, 1922. We both went to our respective businesses that day. I met my husband by appointment at a quarter to six in Aldersgate Street that day. We went to the Criterion Theatre, we there met my uncle and aunt, Mr and Mrs J. Laxton, we left the Theatre about 11 p.m., we all four went to the Piccadilly Circus Tube, we there separated, my husband and I went to Liverpool Street, and we caught the 11.30 train to Ilford, we arrived at Ilford about 12 o’clock, we then proceeded along York Road, Belgrave Road and when we got between De Vere and Endsleigh Gardens (we were walking on the right hand side) my husband suddenly went into the roadway, I went after him, and he fell up against me, and called out ”oo-er.” He was staggering, he was bleeding, and I thought that the blood was coming from his mouth. I cannot remember whether I saw anyone else there or not. I know there was none there when he staggered up against me.
[MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN] “In other words he was taken ill before any body else was there”.
I got hold of my husband with both hands and assisted him to get up against the wall. He stood there for about a minute or two and then slid down on to the footway, he never spoke, I fell on the ground with him, I cannot remember if I shouted out or not. I got up off the ground and ran along to Courtland Avenue with the intention of calling Dr. Maudsley but on the way I met a lady and a gentleman and I said to them something to this effect ‘Can I get a doctor or help me, my husband is ill’. The gentleman said ‘I will go for the doctor’. Dr. Maudsley arrived shortly after although it seemed a long time. The doctor examined my husband and said he was dead. An Ambulance was sent for and the body was removed. I was accompanied to my home by two Police Officers.
[MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN] Then she is obviously questioned; you know by this time they had got some of these letters before them.
I know Freddy Bywaters, I have known him for several years; we were at school together, at least I wasn’t but my two brothers were. He is residing with his widowed mother at 11 Westow St., Norwood. He is a ship’s writer and periodically goes away to sea. He has been for a very long time on visiting terms with my family. In June, 1921 Bywaters came to reside with my husband and myself at No. 41 Kensington Gardens. He came as a paying guest. I think he paid 25s. or 27s. 6d. per week. He was with us up to the beginning of August 1921. I remember August Bank Holiday, 1921. My husband and I quarrelled about something, he struck me. I knocked a chair over. Freddy came in and interfered on my behalf. I left the room and I do not know what transpired between them. As far as my recollection goes Freddy left on the following Friday but before he left my husband and he were friends again. We have been in the habit of corresponding with one another. His letters to me and mine to him were couched in affectionate terms. I am not in possession of any letters he writes to me. I have destroyed all as is customary with me with all my correspondence. The letters shewn to me by Inspector Hall and addressed to Mr F. Bywaters are some of the letters that I wrote to Freddy and were written to him without my husband’s consent. When he was at home in England we were in the habit of going out occasionally together without my husband’s knowledge
This statement has been read over to me. It is voluntary and it is true.
Then you know she sees Bywaters there and she says what I have read to you: “My God, my God, what can I do, why did he do it, I did not want him to do it”, and then she makes another statement. She says, “I will tell you the truth”; it does not necessarily follow that she tells you the truth when she says she is going to tell you the truth, and then she makes a second statement: “When we got near to Endsleigh Gardens a man rushed out from the gardens and knocked me away from my husband. I was dazed for a moment. When I recovered I saw my husband scuffling with a man. The man I know as Freddie Bywaters was running away. He was wearing a blue overcoat and a grey hat. I knew it was him, although I did not see his face.” Now, when they are both charged Bywaters says he is not guilty and she says nothing.
Gentlemen, that is really the whole of the case. I ask your earnest consideration of it. I am not going to say another word to you about the case of the man, only to repeat that if you find the man guilty of murder, then you have got to consider, was this woman an active party to it; did she direct him to go; did she know he was coming and are you satisfied that she was implicated directly in it? Her story is that she knew nothing about it; it was a surprise; in fact, she was pushed aside and she immediately fainted. She did not see what was going on; when a man pushed her against the wall she did not look up to see what happened, she swooned away and then at the end she sees Bywaters going away. You know exactly what was done before the act; you know the fact of all the letters and you know what she did after and you know that her evidence is now that she knew nothing about it. In the letters she was merely saying she was poisoning her husband in order to make an appearance before Bywaters. I am not going to give you her case; that is her whole case and she says she is quite innocent of this matter, and that she is shocked at everything that has happened and had nothing to do with it. You will not convict her unless you are satisfied that she and he agreed that this man should be murdered when he could be and she knew he was going to do it and directed him to do it and by arrangement between them he was doing it. If you are not satisfied of that you will acquit her; if you are satisfied of that it will be your duty to convict her. Will you please retire and consider your verdict.
Is there anything you want, gentlemen ?
The FOREMAN OF THE JURY: I think there is, my Lord, the prisoner’s overcoat you wished us to have as well as the knife.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Yes, you have the knife. In that bundle you will find copies of the signed statements which they made.
(Bundle handed to jury.)
Verdict
The jury retire at 3.32, bailiffs being sworn to take them in charge and return into Court at 5.43.
The CLERK OF THE COURT: Members of the jury, have you agreed upon your verdict?
The FOREMAN OF THE JURY: We have.
The CLERK OF THE COURT: Do you find the prisoner Frederick Edward Francis Bywaters guilty or not guilty of the murder of Percy Thompson?
The FOREMAN — Guilty, sir.
The CLERK OF THE COURT — Do you find the prisoner Edith Jessie Thompson guilty or not guilty of the murder of Percy Thompson?
The FOREMAN: Guilty, Sir.
The CLERK OF THE COURT: You say they are severally guilty and that is the verdict of you all. Frederick Bywaters and Edith Thompson you severally stand convicted of murder; have you, or either of you, anything to say why the Court should not give you judgment of death according to law?
PRISONER BYWATERS: I say the verdict of the jury is wrong. Edith Thompson is not guilty. I am no murderer, I am not an assassin.
MR JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Is there any question of law, Sir Henry, as to the sentence I have to pronounce?
Prisoner THOMPSON: I am not guilty.
SIR H. CURTIS-BENNETT: No, my Lord.
Proclamation.
JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Frederick Edward Francis Bywaters, the sentence of the Court upon you is that you be taken from this place to a lawful prison, etc.
Formal sentence of death was then passed on Frederick Bywaters.
JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Edith Jessie Thompson, the sentence of the Court upon you is that you be taken from this place to a lawful prison, etc.
Formal sentence of death was then passed on Edith Thompson.
The CLERK OF THE COURT: Edith Jessie Thompson, have you anything to say in stay of execution?
Prisoner THOMPSON: I am not guilty; oh, God, I am not guilty.
The prisoners were then removed.
JUSTICE SHEARMAN: Gentlemen, I thank you for your patient attention to a long and difficult case.
APPEALS
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, THURSDAY, 21ST DECEMBER, 1922.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
REX V. FREDERICK EDWARD FRANCIS BYWATERS.
BEFORE— THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND, MR JUSTICE DARLING, AND MR JUSTICE SALTER.
JUDGMENT
APPEALS
ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE, THURSDAY, 21ST DECEMBER, 1922.
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
REX V. EDITH JESSIE THOMPSON.
BEFORE– THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND, MR JUSTICE DARLING, AND MR JUSTICE SALTER.
JUDGMENT
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE – This appellant, FREDERICK EDWARD FRANCIS BYWATERS, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, together with a woman named Edith Jessie Thompson, of the wilful murder of Percy Thompson, and he was sentenced to death. He now appeals against conviction, and, in accordance with the practice of this Court, it is right that this appeal should be dealt with at once, and it will not then be necessary that this appellant should have the ordeal of listening to the appeal in the other case.
Now, the learned judge, in his summing-up to the jury, spoke of the charge as a common or ordinary charge of a wife and an adulterer murdering the husband. That was a true and appropriate description. The case is a squalid and rather indecent case of lust and adultery, in which the husband was murdered in a cowardly fashion, partly because he was in the way and partly, it would seem, because such money as he possessed was desired by the others. There is no need to recapitulate the facts of the case. The woman, Mrs Thompson – to whom I refer for the present purpose only in describing so far as it is necessary to describe the events which preceded the commission of the crime, prejudging nothing as to what may be said on her behalf in that appeal– was the daughter of a Mr Graydon, and is twenty- nine years of age. In 1915 she married Percy Thompson, who, at the time of his death, was thirty-two years of age. There were no children of the marriage. They occupied part of a house at 41 Kensington Gardens, Ilford, and there was evidence, upon which it is not necessary to dwell, that there came a time, at any rate, when she and her husband ceased to be upon good terms. The appellant Bywaters was twenty years of age last June. He was employed as a ship’s writer; and apparently he had known the Graydons for two or three years, and in the year 1921 he stayed with Mr and MrsThompson at the Isle of Wight, and then afterwards in their house at Ilford. In August of last year Bywaters told his mother that Mrs Thompson led a very unhappy life with her husband, and asked his mother how Mrs Thompson could get a separation, and there is evidence that he met Mrs Thompson twice at the warehouse where she was employed – once eighteen months ago, and once on Friday, the 29th September of this year. That was the day upon which Bywaters’ new period of leave started. There was further evidence that he and Mrs Thompson were seen together at a neighbouring teashop on the 29th September and on the 3rd October, and that letters had been taken for Mrs Thompson from the warehouse to Bywaters. On Tuesday, the 3rd October, Mr and Mrs Thompson went to a theatre with Mr Thompson’s uncle. This appellant, Bywaters, was at Mr Graydon’s house in Manor Park that night; and in the course of the evening it was mentioned that the Thompsons had gone to the theatre. Bywaters left about ten o’clock, or a little later, and the place where Mr Thompson was afterwards killed was some 2 miles and 370 yards from the house of the Graydons, and was not at all on the appellant’s way home. Mr Laxton left the Thompsons at the Piccadilly Tube station at about a quarter to eleven that night, and they made their way to Ilford, and as they were going in the direction of their home Mrs Thompson went running to a passer-by in a state of great agitation and made a statement. I do not at present enter into that statement, because it is not necessary. Mr Thompson had been killed, and when the police came and took his body to the mortuary he was found to be wounded in many places: on the left side below the ribs there were four slight cuts on the skin which had gone through his clothing; there were two slight cuts on the front of the chin; two slight cuts on the right side of the lower jaw; and a slight cut on the right arm. There was a stab in the back of the neck 2 inches deep and one and a quarter inches wide; a stab at the back of the neck 2 inches deep and one and a half inches wide; a stab in the centre of the neck 1 inch wide and 21/2 inches deep, which penetrated down and opened the gullet. The doctor was of opinion that the fatal wound in the neck was received from behind, but he was doubtful about it.
Now to pass over further evidence, no small part of the evidence in the case undoubtedly consisted of a remarkable correspondence between the appellant and Mrs Thompson. Few of his letters had been preserved, I think only three. Many of her letters had been preserved, and those letters were undoubtedly used as some material helping the jury to arrive at a true conclusion with regard to this appellant. It is not necessary for me in dealing with his case to enter further into the nature of the contents of those letters ; but it is said by Mr Whiteley, who has argued this appeal on behalf of the appellant, that it was wrong in this case that the appellant and Mrs Thompson should be tried together. That is the first ground of his appeal. Now, it has been held again and again by this Court – the cases are so numerous that it is not necessary to refer to them – that it is a matter of judicial discretion whether two persons shall or shall not be tried separately. In this case the learned judge, exercising his discretion, decided that the present appellant and Mrs Thompson should be tried together. In the opinion of this Court, there was no ground at all for unfavourable criticism of that decision. On the contrary, this was clearly a case in which, in the interests of justice, it was desirable that the two prisoners should be tried together. It is said that the effect of trying the two prisoners together was that many of the letters written by Mrs Thompson to the appellant were used as material from which the jury might draw a conclusion unfavourable to Bywaters. But exactly the same thing would have happened if the prisoners had been tried separately. It is not to be supposed that if the learned judge had come to the conclusion that Bywaters should be tried separately the Prosecution would not have made use of those letters. It was further said that the result of trying the two prisoners together was that Mrs Thompson became, as otherwise she might not have been, a witness in the case in which Bywaters was being dealt with. No doubt, if the result of trying two persons together who might have been tried separately is what has been called in the cases referred to by Mr Whiteley a miscarriage of justice, this Court will interfere. But what is meant by a miscarriage of justice? That means that a person has been improperly found guilty. It is idle to suggest that a miscarriage of justice has taken place if the prisoner, against whom there is ample evidence, and, indeed, overwhelming evidence, suffers, in the opinion of the Defence, some incidental disadvantage because a fellow-prisoner, who would not otherwise have been a witness does go into the witness-box. No doubt, in cases where the Defence of one accused person is to incriminate another accused person, that is a good reason for not trying the two persons together; but that was not this case, and, in the opinion of this Court, it was helpful in the administration of justice, which knows no other object except to arrive at a true conclusion, that Mrs Thompson’s evidence should have been given as assisting the members of the jury to come to a right conclusion in the case, not only of herself, but also of Bywaters. Now, in the course of the complaint under this head, Mr Whiteley said that there was no evidence at all that Mrs Thompson did anything to aid and abet the actual commission of this crime on the night of the 3rd October. That is a matter which may have to be considered in the next appeal, but, so far as that argument is employed on behalf of Bywaters, speaking for myself, I am not prepared for a moment to admit that there was no evidence that Mrs Thompson aided and abetted the actual commission of this crime. Upon the whole, so far as this first ground of appeal is concerned, the learned judge, as we think, exercised his discretion and exercised it wisely and well in holding that these two prisoners should stand their trial together.
The second ground of appeal was that as the learned Solicitor- General appeared as leading counsel for the Prosecution, he had, and exercised, the right of reply; and it was contended that, at any rate, since the passing of Lord Denman’s Act, the Criminal Procedure Act of 1865, the law officer of the Crown has not a right of reply. Support for that proposition was sought to be derived from cases in which the prerogative of the Crown in relation to the provisions of statutes dealing with similar matter has been considered. The argument fails, for this quite simple reason: the Act of 1865 is not dealing with this matter at all, and it was long after 1865 that the resolution of the judges referred to by Mr Whiteley was come to, namely, in the year 1884. That was not an enabling resolution; it was a resolution which had a limited effect, and it was this: that in those Crown cases in which the Attorney or Solicitor-General is personally engaged, a reply where no witnesses are called for the Defence is to be allowed as of right to the counsel for the Crown and in no others. That is the existing state of the law. If the law is to be altered, it must be altered elsewhere, but at present, when the law officer of the Crown, whether he be the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General, appears in a Crown case – which is no mere accident – what it means is that those who have had to deliberate upon the matter have come to the conclusion that it is a case in which, in the interests of justice, it is right that a law officer of the Crown should appear – when a law officer of the Crown does appear, then, according to the exercise of his discretion, he may exercise the right which at present he lawfully has; and, again, applying that matter to the facts of this particular case, one cannot see any ground for the suggestion that the Defence was prejudiced by what the learned Solicitor-General, in a speech of studious moderation, did.
Finally, it is suggested that there was misdirection. The summing-up in the case of Bywaters fills, in the transcript of the shorthand note, an enormous number of pages. It is not denied by Mr Whiteley that the questions relating to Bywaters were fully and clearly put again and again, and, in the opinion of this Court, in the particular and minor matters to which Mr Whiteley has taken exception, there is no ground whatever for the complaint of misdirection.
As to the complaint that evidence was wrongly admitted, I have already dealt with that in dealing with the letters. The complaint there is with regard to the letters, and I make this further observation about them only: it matters not for this purpose whether Mrs Thompson had really done or attempted the various acts which in those letters she said or suggested that she had done or attempted. It matters not whether those letters shew, or, at any rate, go to shew, that there was between this appellant and Mrs Thompson any agreement tending to the same end. Those letters were material as throwing light, not only upon the question by whom was this deed done, but what was the intent, what was the purpose with which it was done. Therefore, not to mention other grounds, those letters were most material upon the allegation of the appellant, by way of afterthought, that what he did was done in self-defence. I say “by way of afterthought,” because when one looks at the statement which he made at an early stage, after his arrest upon the 5th day of October (exhibit No. 6) – and Mr Whiteley has already read the passage this morning – what he said was this – “The reason I fought with Thompson was because he never acted like a man to his wife. He always seemed several degrees lower than a snake.” That is not merely not the same thing as saying – “The reason I fought with Thompson was in self-defence, because he appeared to me that he was going to shoot me”; it contradicts that reason. It is something which excludes that defence.
In all these circumstances, not to dwell further upon the evidence in a very ordinary though a very painful case, in the opinion of this Court this appeal fails upon every ground, and must be dismissed.
Rex v. Edith Jessie Thompson.
Before– The Lord Chief Justice of England, Mr Justice Darling, and Mr Justice Salter.
JUDGMENT
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE – This appellant, EDITH JESSIE THOMPSON, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court, together with the last appellant, Frederick Edward Francis Bywaters, of the wilful murder of Percy Thompson, and she was sentenced to death. She now appeals against conviction. The charge against her was in point of law that she was what is called a principal in the second degree; that is to say, that she was a person present at the commission of the offence who aided and abetted the commission of the offence, and, to put it in a slightly different way, the point of the charge against this woman was that she incited and aided and abetted the commission of this crime upon the night of the 3rd day of October. Now, before I come to deal with the argument that has been presented on behalf of the appellant by Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett, it is necessary, as shortly as possible, to review some of the facts of this essentially commonplace and unedifying case. The appellant, Edith Jessie Thompson, is twenty-nine years of age. She is the daughter of a Mr Graydon, and seven years ago she married Mr Percy Thompson, the man now dead, the only person who in this case excites any sympathy.
At the time of his death he was thirty-two years of age. They lived in a part of a house at Ilford, called No. 41 Kensington Gardens ; and the evidence was that the appellant and her husband were not on good terms with each other. She was employed as manageress to a firm of milliners in Aldersgate Street, where she received a salary of £6 a week in addition to a bonus. Some time ago, a considerable time ago, the appellant made the acquaintance of Bywaters, a young steward on a liner, whose case was dealt with this morning. He had stayed with them elsewhere and in their own house, and it is quite obvious from many portions of the evidence that the terms upon which she and Bywaters had come to be, long before the 3rd October of this year, were terms of the most culpable intimacy. Bywaters was from time to time absent on his ship. It is not necessary even for the sake of clearness to examine closely the chronology in the case; but there were periods when he was at home and there were periods when he was away, and the periods when he was away are to a great extent covered by a remarkable and deplorable correspondence, full of the most mischievous and perilous stuff. In August of last year Bywaters, according to the evidence, made a statement to his mother about the unhappy life of Mrs Thompson, and the evidence shewed, if the jury accepted it, as they apparently did, that on more than one occasion Bywaters had called at the warehouse where Mrs Thompson was employed, that he had kept up this protracted correspondence with her. The letters which are actually made exhibits began with the 11th of August, 1921, and they continue right down to the 2nd October, 1922 – that is to say, the day before the commission of the crime – and the evidence further was that after an absence of some weeks, Bywaters began a new period of leave on the 29th September last. There was evidence that he was with the appellant at a neighbouring teashop upon that day; and again upon Tuesday, the 3rd day of October. That was the day upon which the crime was committed. On that Tuesday, the 3rd October, the appellant and her husband went to a theatre with the husband’s uncle, Mr Laxton. Upon that same evening Bywaters went to the house of the appellant’s father; and it appears to have been mentioned at that house that the Thompsons had gone to the theatre. Bywaters left about ten o’clock or a little after ten. Somewhat later the appellant and her husband with Mr Laxton, went to the Piccadilly Tube station, about a quarter to eleven. There, it was said, they were apparently on good terms, and it is clear from what followed that they made their way home by train to Ilford. Shortly before midnight a Miss Pittard was walking with Mr and Mrs Cleveley from Ilford station, and their way took them through a road called Belgrave Road, and when they were between De Vere Gardens and Endsleigh Gardens, both places not far from Kensington Gardens, where the Thompsons own house was, Mrs Thompson came running to him. She was agitated and incoherent. She said – “Oh, my God, will you help me, my husband is ill; he is bleeding.” And she said he was on the pavement, and asked those persons to go or take her and get a doctor. They took her to the house of a doctor, Dr. Maudsley, and then Mrs Thompson ran back. A witness was called named Webber, who lived about 30 or 40 yards away from that place, and he said that as he was going to bed he heard a woman’s voice, a voice which he now recognised as Mrs Thompson’s voice, calling in piteous tones, “Oh, don’t, don’t.” He went outside, and three or four minutes later he saw three persons coming from Dr. Maudsley’s house. Mrs Thompson was in front running and sobbing. He followed, and found Mrs Thompson and Mr Thompson. He asked her if he could help, and she said, “Don’t touch him, don’t touch him; a lady and a gentleman have gone off for a doctor.” Miss Pittard and Mr Cleveley then came up, and they found the appellant kneeling down by Mr Thompson, who was lying upon the footpath in Belgrave Road with his back propped against the wall. The place was dark. Mr Cleveley struck a match, and Miss Pittard asked Mrs Thompson what had happened; and the appellant answered, “Oh, do not ask me; I do not know. Somebody flew past, and when I turned to speak to him blood was pouring out of his mouth.” A few minutes later Dr. Maudsley arrived, and he found that Mr Thompson was dead. He thought he had been dead then about ten minutes. Mrs Thompson was standing by his side, and he described her as being confused, hysterical, and agitated. He asked her if Mr Thompson had been ill coming home, and she said “No.” He told her that Mr Thompson was dead, and she said, “Why did not you come sooner and save him?” The doctor made no examination then. He saw the blood. He did not see any wound, but he sent for the police. A police sergeant took the appellant to her house, and on the way she said, “Will he come back? They will blame me for this.” Now, the place where the body was found was about 50 yards from the Thompsons’ house and 1250 yards from Ilford station. It was an indirect way from the station to the house. The police came, took the body to the mortuary and undressed it, and it was examined; and a great number of wounds were found upon it. The most serious wounds were three stabs, apparently inflicted from behind, one of which penetrated down to and opened the gullet. Mr Thompson’s brother was sent for, and shortly before two o’clock in the morning he arrived at Mrs Thompson’s house. She told her brother-in-law that Mr Thompson was walking along and suddenly came over queer and said “Oh ! ” and that on the way from the station he had complained of pains in his legs, and that she had met a lady and gentleman and had gone for a doctor, and when they got back he was dead.
At three o’clock in the morning two police sergeants went to Mrs Thompson’s house and saw her. She was asked if she could explain what had happened on the road, and she said, “I do not know; I cannot say; I only know that my husband suddenly dropped down and screamed out ‘ Oh!’ I then rushed across the road and saw a lady and gentleman, and asked them if they would help me, and they went with me for the doctor.” She was asked whether she could account for the cuts on her husband’s neck, and she said, “No. Wo were walking along, and my husband said ‘ Oh,’ and I said ‘ Bear up,’ thinking he had one of his attacks.” He then fell on her, and walked a little further. He then fell up against the wall and then on the ground. She was asked if her husband carried a knife, and she said “No. ” She was asked if she was carrying a knife in her handbag, and she said “No.” She was also asked if she or her husband saw or spoke to any person in Belgrave Road, and she said, “No; I did not notice any one.” About eleven o’clock in the morning of the 4th October Inspector Hall saw Mrs Thompson at her house, and she told him : “We were coming along Belgrave Road and just passed the corner of Endsleigh Gardens when I heard him call out, ‘ Oh er,’ and he fell up against me. I put out my arms to save him, and found blood which I thought was coming from his mouth. I tried to hold him up. He staggered for several yards towards Kensington Gardens and then fell against the wall and slid down. He did not speak to me; I cannot say if I spoke to him. I felt him, and found his clothing wet with blood. He never moved after he fell. We had no quarrel on the way; we were quite happy together. Immediately I saw blood I ran across the road to a doctor’s. I appealed to a lady and gentleman who were passing, and the gentleman also went to the doctor’s. The doctor came and told me my husband was dead. Just before he fell down I was walking on his right hand side on the inside of the pavement nearest the wall. We were side by side. I did not see anybody about at the time. My husband and I were talking about going to a dance.” That evening Mrs Thompson was taken to the police station, and on the 5th October she made a statement which became exhibit No. 3 at the trial. I shall not read it all; but it is to be observed that in that statement made when she went to the police station she says this: “I have always been on affectionate terms with my husband. I remember Tuesday, the 3rd October, we both went to our respective businesses that day; I met my husband by appointment at a quarter to six in Aldersgate Street.” She then describes how they went to the theatre and how they came home; and then she describes or purports to describe what took place, and she says, amongst other things, this – “I cannot remember whether I saw any one else there or not. I know there was no one there when he staggered up against me.” She went on to speak of Bywaters and her knowledge of Bywaters. She said, I am not in possession of any letters he wrote to me. I have destroyed them all, as is customary with me with all my correspondence. When he was at home in England we were in the habit of going out occasionally together without my husband’s knowledge.” According to that statement she had not seen Bywaters that night; she did not associate Bywaters with what had taken place, and she was on good terms with Mr Thompson, her husband. Now it happened that at the police station she saw Bywaters, who had been taken to the police station, and was in the library as she passed, and she then said, “Oh God, oh God, what can I do? Why did he do it? I did not want him to do it. I must tell the truth.” And then she made a further statement, which is exhibit No. 4. In that short statement she said this – “When we got near Endsleigh Gardens a man rushed out from the Gardens and knocked me and pushed me away from my husband. I was dazed for a moment. When I recovered I saw my husband scuffling with a man. The man who I know as Freddie Bywaters was running away. He was wearing a blue overcoat and a grey hat. I knew it was him although I did not see his face.” The two were afterwards charged together. The knife with which these wounds had been inflicted was found in a neighbouring drain, and I do not think I need dwell upon the rest of the evidence. Dr. Spilsbury said that all the wounds except the one on the arm of Mr Thompson were stabs.
The appellant Bywaters gave evidence first, and Mrs Thompson gave evidence, and I shall have to refer in a moment to the denials she made. She said, among other things, that she first fell in love with Bywaters in September, 1921, and that she had told her husband that she had given him cause for divorce. The jury, having heard the whole of the evidence, both that which I have summarised and much else, came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of wilful murder.
Now, what are the pleas that are put forward on behalf of the appellant in this appeal? Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett at the outset stated, and very frankly stated, that before he came into Court this morning he had decided to abandon that ground of appeal which rested upon the allegation that this appellant and Bywaters ought to have been tried separately, but were in fact tried together. That ground of appeal is not persisted in. But Sir Henry says – he puts it in more than one way, but it is really the same contention illustrated and sought to be enforced from different points of view – that in order that this appellant might properly be convicted of this crime there ought to be evidence shewing not merely that as between her and Bywaters there was a community of purpose in this matter, but that that community of purpose continued right up to the crucial moment when the crime was committed; and in regard to that complaint Sir Henry relies especially upon two matters. He relies first upon the letters and the use to which they were put or not put; and secondly he relies upon certain portions in the summing up, where he says the learned judge not only misdirected the jury in the sense of inviting them to find what they could not find, but also omitted to direct the jury in the sense that he did not adequately put before the jury what the Defence of the appellant was. With regard to the letters, in the opinion of this Court there was more than one ground upon which the use of these letters could be justified. It is enough for the present purpose to say that they could be justified upon this ground that by means of them the Prosecution were seeking to shew that continuously over a long period, beginning before and culminating in the time immediately antecedent to the commission of the crime, Mrs Thompson was, with every sort of ingenuity, by precept and by example, actual or simulated, endeavouring to incite Bywaters to the commission of this crime. I am not going to read those letters. There is a great mass of them. Many of them were read at the trial. They begin in the summer of 1921, and they continue until the 2nd October, 1922; that is to say, they continue until the day before the day upon which this crime was committed. Now, what is it that those letters may reasonably be regarded as shewing? First of all, they shew a passionate and, in the circumstances, a wicked affection between Mrs Thompson and Bywaters. Secondly, they contain what purport to be accounts of efforts which have been made, sometimes without the assistance of Bywaters, sometimes with the assistance of Bywaters, to get Mr Thompson out of the way. Thirdly – and this is a thread that runs through the whole skein of these letters – there is the continual entreaty and hope that that which they both desire will somehow be accomplished. Now, in the opinion of the Court, the theory that these letters, so far as they purport to describe attempts made upon the life of Mr Thompson, are mere nonsense– “Vapour,” as Bywaters calls them – “Melodramatic nonsense,” as learned counsel has thought fit to call them – is a theory which cannot be accepted. But however that may be, if the question is, as I think it was, whether these letters were evidence of a protracted, continuous incitement to Bywaters to commit the crime which he did in the end commit, it really is of comparatively little importance whether the appellant was truly reporting something which she had done, or falsely reporting something which she merely pretended to do. I am not going to read them; it is not necessary; but reference may, perhaps, be made to one of them, which is the last. By this time Bywaters was back in this country. The appellant and Bywaters were meeting. They had ample opportunity of conversation and arrangement of any plan in which they might be interested; and upon the 2nd of October the appellant wrote to him – “I tried so hard to find a way out of to-night, darlingest, but he was suspicious and still is. . . . We ought to be able to use great big things for great big love like ours.” And again “Darlint, it is funds that are our stumbling block – until we have those, we can do nothing.” That is not the only passage in the later correspondence in which the appellant refers to the importance of money. Then she goes on– “Darlint do something tomorrow night will you? something to make you forget. I’ll be hurt I know, but I want you to hurt me– I do really – the bargain now seems so one-sided – so unfair – but how can I alter it.” And finally, the last passage– “Don’t forget what we talked in the tearoom. I’ll still risk and try if you will – we only have 3 and three quarter years left darlingest.” Now, it cannot be said that those letters were not evidence against the appellant in support of the charge which the Prosecution were making up against her.
I pass to the summing up. The complaint against the summing up, which is a very long summing up, is that it did what it ought not to have done, and it omitted to do what it should have done. Is there any ground for that criticism? Let me refer to one or two, and only to one or two passages. The case for the Prosecution was that the appellant and Bywaters were acting together. The case for this appellant was that the letters she had written were nonsense, and that what took place on the night of Tuesday, 3rd October, was to her a great surprise. At the very outset of the summing up the learned judge put the question for the jury in this clear and simple form – “The case presented is that these two, by arrangement between each other, agreed to murder this man, and the murder was effected by the man. Unless you are satisfied of that, namely, that they did it, did it by arrangement in the way I shall explain to you, there would be no case against the woman.” Then the learned judge deals with the case against the man, and, to come to a later page, he says this – “Now I am going to ask you to consider only one question in your deliberations, and that is, was it an arranged thing between the woman and the man,” &c. (reading to the words) ” if you are satisfied.” I pause there to say that one of the incidental criticisms offered upon the summing up is that it does not expressly say in so many words the burden of proof is upon the Prosecution, but again and again and again the learned judge says that everything depends upon the jury’s being satisfied of something, which apart from technicality is the same thing as saying that the Prosecution have to prove their case. ” If you are satisfied that there was,” &c. (reading to the words) “that is what I submit to you ” Now, the criticism which is offered upon that passage is that there was no direct evidence that she had informed Bywaters that she would be there with her husband at that time. There was no direct evidence that he was there at her invitation, or upon information given by her. That is quite true. But in view of all the rest of the evidence, both as to what happened before the commission of those acts, and as to what happened immediately after the commission of those acts, it was obviously open to the jury to infer that that which was done was done as the result of preconcerted arrangement, and that is what the learned judge is putting here, making it plain again and again and again that they are to be satisfied before they draw that inference. And he pursues the same matter. He says on the next page – “The short case for the Prosecution is this, that for months these people had been corresponding” &c. (reading to the words), “inciting him to murder.” In the next sentence the learned judge goes on to say —”I will deal with the letters and deal with her explanation later on; and it is complained that in that part of his summing up he says, “I know when you have letters the jury want to hear what the judge says about the letters.” I cannot help thinking that far too much stress has been laid upon that particular phrase. It seems no more than this —” I have not forgotten the letters; I know you will expect me to deal with them.” And when the learned judge comes to deal with the letters, what is it that he says? Let me refer to two other passages. He says this, having referred to a letter – ” The meaning of that is for you to judge. You will fully under- stand it is not for me to tell you what the letters mean. You are the judges of that, not I. There is no law about it whatever.” And yet again he says – “I should be wanting in my duty if I did not plainly explain to you that the meaning of these letters is entirely for you.” In view of those warnings, it seems to me to be impossible that the learned judge could be understood to have meant by his former phrase, “You will take your view of these letters from me.” Again, to pass to another passage, the learned judge says this – ” It is said by the Prosecution that from the beginning to the end of these letters she is seriously considering and inciting the man to assist her to poison her husband; and if she did that, and if you find that within a week or two after he came back the poisoning is considered no longer possible, he has no longer studied or has not studied bichloride of mercury, but has read ‘ Bella Donna ’ to see if ‘ Bella Donna ‘ can be of any use to him ” – I pause to say there that a remark was made as to the view which she expressed upon a leading character in that story, and it is also to be observed that she recommended that book to be read by him as a book which might prove useful to him hereafter– “they would naturally turn to some other means of effecting their object,” &c. (reading to the words) “a meeting which only finished when there was a discussion in the tearoom ” – that is the discussion referred to in the last paragraph of the last letter. And again – “You are entitled to assume– it is entirely for you to say whether you are satisfied – you are entitled to assume that she sped him on his errand,” &c. (reading to the words) ” you will not draw it unless you are satisfied.” And finally, at the close of the summing up the learned judge once more repeats the warning. It is on the last page of the summing up – ” You will not convict her unless you are satisfied that she and he agreed that this man should be murdered,” &c (reading to the words) “he was doing it.” The matter could not be put more strongly than that – “If you are not satisfied of that you will acquit her. If you are satisfied of that it will be your duty to convict her.”
Taking that long summing up as a whole, and reading one part with the rest of what the learned judge says, in the opinion of this Court it is not possible to found upon it any unfavourable criticism. The case was clearly put before the jury. There was simple evidence, partly direct evidence, partly evidence from which inference might properly be drawn; and upon that evidence, in a case which exhibits from beginning to end no redeeming feature, the members of the jury have convicted the appellant. In the opinion of this Court there is no reason to interfere with that conviction, and this appeal must be dismissed.
[1] [ * not ‘Richard Sellars’ as Filson Young writes. Somehow Young must have wrongly collated the papers on his desk, hence the confusion of Hall and Sellars. Richard Sellars was a clerk at the General Post Office. Under oath he states ‘I am employed in the Accountants’ Department. I produce an original telegram of 23rd September 1922, exhibit 47. I have seen what purports to be a delivered copy of this telegram. It is exhibit 48. The date printed in this copy is incorrect’.]