Witness to a murder:

 The testimony of John Webber

 12.30 am: 4 October 1922, Ilford

 

There were thirteen witnesses to the murder of Percy Thompson on the night of 4 October 1922. Four of them testified. Of these the most important witness was John Webber, who lived 97 yards away from the scene of the crime. Webber claimed that during the assault Edith Thompson was screaming ‘Oh don’t, oh don’t’, in ‘a most piteous manner’. This assertion was borne out by other witnesses, including some who did not testify at the trial.

Webber’s testimony should have helped exonerate Edith Thompson. This was noted long ago by Filson Young, the editor of the 1923 Notable British Trials volume on ‘Thompson and Bywaters’. In Young’s view, Webber’s evidence was proof that Edith Thompson ‘tried to prevent’ the murder rather than aiding and abetting it, as the judge implied.

Young writes:

There is the evidence of John Webber, of which I think nearly enough was not made in the trial. He lived at 59 De Vere Gardens, Ilford, and at what must have been the moment of the murder, and 30 or 40 yards [actually 97 yards!] away from the spot where it was committed he heard a voice raised in the silence of the night – a woman’s voice, crying, “Oh don’t, oh don’t!” in the most piteous manner. He was retiring to bed; but so impressed was he by this cry that he put on his clothes and went out into the street, where he met the little crowd of three hurrying to the spot where Mrs Thompson was holding up her husband. That is evidence, surely, not that Mrs Thompson assisted and approved of the crime, but that she tried to prevent it; yet I think the only bearing of this evidence alluded to by the judge was that it went to prove that Mrs Thompson was present and a witness of the murder. It does not seem to me that that is the true value of this piece of evidence, or that nearly enough weight was given to it as bearing out what I believe to have been the fact: that Mrs Thompson, however much she might have desired that a kind Providence would remove her husband from her path, was just as horrified as any one else when she saw that the furious assault of Bywaters upon him was, in fact, a murderous assault.

Mr Justice Shearman, the trial judge, was well aware of the significance of John Webber’s evidence and its potential for swaying the jury in favour of Edith Thompson. Hence his calling Webber’s evidence into question would be particularly damaging to her case in the eyes of the jury who trusted the judge to be fair and equitable.

Quite how prejudicial the judge’s analysis of Webber’s evidence was is clear from a close comparison of his ‘summary’ with the accounts of Webber and the testimonies of a number of other witnesses; witnesses who, like Webber, were either in Belgrave Road, the street of the murder, at the time of the assault or else inhabited houses on it.

In what follows I will quote the four witnesses who testified at the Old Bailey as well as those whose witness statements were taken by the police but not used at the trial. In addition the local Ilford newspaper conducted a number of interviews with witnesses the day after the murder. They deepen the context of the other statements and further illuminate the events of the night.

Thirteen local people have been identified as either hearing the screams of Edith Thompson during the fight inside their homes on Belgrave Road, or else because they were in the road itself at the time of the murder and became part of the unfolding tragedy.

 

The Thirteen Witnesses of Belgrave Road:

Dora Pittard *

Percy Cleveley *

Dr Noel Maudsley *

Dr Maudsley’s wife

Maid at the Maudsleys’ house

Mr and Mrs Gearing, the Maudsleys’ neighbours

Alfred Howard +

Alfred Howard’s wife

Lilian Dobson, the Howards’ maid +

John Webber *

John Webber’s wife

Nurse living in the Webbers’ home

(* = testified at the trial; + = gave formal statement to police)

Murder scene and distances in police map

Shortly before the murder of Percy Thompson, four Ilfordians, Mr and Mrs Percy Cleveley of 62 Mayfair Avenue, Miss Dora Finch Pittard of 59 Endsleigh Gardens, and Mrs Jessie Secretan of 92 Courtland Avenue were walking home through Belgrave Road. They had been on the same train as Edith and Percy Thompson and were walking some distance behind them.

Two of these four, Dora Pittard and Percy Cleveley, testified at the trial. Here is their evidence about what they saw that night:

DORA FINCH PITTARD, examined by Mr TRAVERS HUMPHREYS — I live at 59 Endsleigh Gardens, Ilford. A few minutes before midnight on 3rd October I arrived with some friends of mine at Ilford station, and I proceeded to walk home by Belgrave Road. When I was between De Vere Gardens and Endsleigh Gardens I saw a woman running towards me — the prisoner, Mrs Thompson. She cried out, “ Oh, my God! Will you help me; my husband is ill, he is bleeding.” I asked her where he was, and she said he was on the pavement. I took Mrs Thompson to the house of Dr. Maudsley, at the corner of Courtland Avenue, and then I went back to Kensington Gardens, Mrs Thompson being just in front of me. Finding a man lying on the pavement, I asked Mrs Thompson what had happened to her husband, and 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.” Mrs Thompson was very agitated and incoherent.

Cross-examined by Sir H. CURTIS-BENNETT — When I first saw Mrs Thompson she was running hard in my direction.

It was quite clear to you that at that time she was in a hysterical condition? — Yes, she was very agitated.

It was quite obvious to you that what she wanted was to get help for her husband? — Yes, I suppose so.

PERCY EDWARD CLEVELEY, examined by Mr TRAVERS HUMPHREYS —I live at 62 Mayfair Avenue, Ilford. I was one of the party which included the last witness, Miss Pittard. While walking through Belgrave Road we met the prisoner, Mrs Thompson, who seemed to come out of the darkness, as it were. She spoke about her husband having fallen down, that he was ill, and she wanted help, and she asked where we could find a doctor. We went to Dr. Maudsley’s house, and, on returning, we found the deceased lying on the pavement with his back propped up against the wall. I asked Mrs Thompson how it had happened, and she said she could not say — “Something brushed past,” or “ flew past,” or words to that effect, “ and he fell down.”

Cross-examined by Sir H. CURTIS-BENNETT — When Mrs Thompson first came up, was not the first thing she said, “ Do you know a doctor, do you know a doctor ? ” — No, I think the first thing was that she asked for help. She asked for a doctor, and said that her husband had fallen down. On the way back from Dr. Maudsley’s Mrs Thompson ran on in front of us to get back to her husband. When we got there we found her kneeling down with him.

When you asked her what had happened, was she in a very agitated condition? — Yes, she was certainly very excited and agitated.

And hysterical and incoherent in her statements? — Yes.

Dr Noel Maudsley, also of llford, was in bed at the time of the murder. His house at 62 Courtland Avenue, on the corner of Belgrave Road, is 180 yards (distance given on police map) or so from the spot where Percy Thompson died. He was summoned by Edith Thompson and Miss Pittard to help Percy Thompson who at that stage had collapsed against the garden wall of 60 Endsleigh Gardens. Here is his testimony in court:

Dr. NOEL MAUDSLEY, examined by Mr TRAVERS HUMPHREYS — I live at 62 Courtland Avenue, Ilford, which is at the corner of Belgrave Road. I was called up by Miss Pittard in the early morning of 4th October, and I went to a spot about half-way between Kensington Gardens and Endsleigh Gardens. I there saw a man lying on the pavement, with Mrs Thompson standing by his side. I struck a match and made an examination of the man. I first examined his pulse, and found that he was dead. I should think about five or eight minutes would elapse from the time I was first called to the time I actually got to the body. When I examined the man I should say he had been dead somewhere about ten minutes. Mrs Thompson was in a confused condition, hysterical and agitated. I asked her if her husband had been taken ill coming home in the train or coming along the road, and she said no. When I told her that her husband was dead she said, “ Why did you not come sooner and save him? ” I saw no wounds; there were no bleeding points to observe, but the blood was welling out of his mouth. I did not see any indications of a struggle having taken place.

Cross-examined by Mr CECIL WHITELEY — I never directed my attention at all to the wounds from which this man was suffering; I made no examination.

The Recorder of 6 October 1922 cites Dr Maudsley, his maid, and his neighbours:

In an interview a maid at the house of Dr Maudsley said, ‘I was awakened shortly after midnight by hearing a woman scream. Then there was a loud knocking at the front door and the doctor was called out of bed to go to Mrs Thompson’.

Mrs Gearing, who lives next door to Dr Maudsley, said, ‘We [she and her husband] were just going to bed when we heard a woman scream. I looked out of the window and heard her say to Dr Maudsley, ‘Oh dear, what shall I do? My husband has fallen and cut his head.’

Dr Maudsley, who lives within a short distance of where the attack took place has stated that at 12.30 am a woman called and told his wife a doctor was wanted at once.

‘I went out’, he added, ‘and along Belgrave-road saw a man on the pavement. He was in a sitting position, propped up against the wall of a house.

He had no hat on, and his head had fallen forward. Blood appeared to be coming from his mouth. He was dead.

His wife was standing near him and seemed to be very distressed and hysterical, and I could get no clear account of what had happened from her. I ‘phoned for the police.

About three o’clock I was rung up by the police and asked if I had noticed a wound on the man’s throat. I said “No”, because I had only examined him by the light of matches.’

Five people in the vicinity of the scene of the murder, though indoors in houses off the Belgrave Road at the time of the assault, heard a woman scream during it and after. They were

1. ALFRED HOWARD, his wife, and their living-in maid LILIAN DOBSON, all three of 61 Kensington Gardens, the corner house on Belgrave Road. Percy Thompson died in Belgrave Road, against the back garden wall of 60 Endsleigh Gardens, which abuts the Howards’ garden.

2. JOHN WEBBER and his wife at 59 De Vere Gardens, the corner house of De Vere and Belgrave Road, as well as a nurse living in the Webbers’ home just then. From the spot where Percy Thompson collapsed and died it is about 290 feet / 97 yards / 88 meters to the Webbers’ home at 59 De Vere Gardens, using the official scaled map of the police.

In view of the judge’s misrepresenting the testimony of John Webber, statements given to the police by Lilian Dobson and Alfred Howard, both of 61 Kensington Gardens, need to be considered. Dobson and Howard were significant ear-witnesses. What they heard matters because the judge specifically queried the substance of what Webber declared to have heard at the time of the murder. In addition to information provided by these witnesses to the police, the already cited piece in the Recorder of 6 October 1922 offers further relevant context for Webber’s evidence.

LILIAN DOBSON: Lilian Dobson (spelled ‘Dobeton’ in the police file) was a domestic servant at 61 Kensington Gardens. She was aged 22 in October 1922 and occupied what in her own home Edith Thompson called the ‘little room’, that is the first floor servants’ room in these suburban houses which were all similarly designed (Bywaters slept in the equivalent room to Dobson when staying at 41 Kensington Gardens). Miss Dobson’s bedroom window – the fourth one from the left in the image below – looked out over the back garden of the Howards’ house and commanded a view of the Belgrave Road. As the crow flies Lilian Dobson was barely 13 yards away from the spot where Percy died.

At 12.30 that night Lilian Dobson was in bed:

I am a domestic servant at the above address. I sleep at the back of the house on the 1^st floor. I was awakened during the night of the 3^rd October 1922, I cannot tell the time, by a woman screaming and sobbing hysterically at Belgrave Road close to the spot at which I now know the body of a man was found that night. The woman stopped crying and then I heard two men’s voices … I did not get out of bed. No 61 Kensington Gardens is the corner of Belgrave Road. The body was found near our gates.

ALFRED HOWARD: Miss Dobson’s employer, Alfred Howard, a metal merchant, and his wife occupied the front bedroom on the first floor of 61 Kensington Gardens. They therefore looked out on Kensington Gardens.

In his testimony to police Howard declares:

… At about 11 p.m. 3^rd October I went to bed in the front room of the house. At about 12.30 4^th October I heard a woman’s voice in Belgrave Road. She appeared to be sobbing and crying hysterically. I got out of bed, looked out of the front window and saw a man riding on a cycle up Kensington Gardens towards the Drive from Belgrave Road.

An interview in the local newspaper The Recorder (published 6 October 1922) adds a bit more detail to the Howards’ somewhat discrepant recollections (with regard to the ‘cycle’ and ‘two men’) of those crucial moments:

The house on the corner of Kensington-Gardens and Belgrave-road is occupied by Mr and Mrs Howard, and Mr Thompson was found in a dying position opposite to their garage door.

Mrs Howard and the maid were awakened by screams about 12.30 a.m.

‘My husband’, said Mrs Howard, ‘looked out of the window at the front of the house, but could only see two men hurrying along the pavement.

We heard a woman sobbing after the screams died away. My husband, thinking it was a street brawl, went back to bed.’

 

John Webber’s evidence

At the trial John Webber of 59 De Vere Gardens testified. His evidence chimed closely with the recollections of the other witnesses from the night of the crime. Here it is from the transcript of the trial:

JOHN WEBBER, examined by Mr ROLAND OLIVER — I am a sales manager, and live at 59 De Vere Gardens, Ilford. About 12.30 in the morning of 4th October, just as I was about to retire to bed, I heard a woman’s voice saying, “ Oh, don’t; oh, don’t,” in a most piteous manner. On hearing that I went out into the street, and I saw two ladies and a gentleman coming towards me in the direction of Dr. Maudsley’s house. One of the ladies was running in front of the other two. After they had passed me I saw a match being struck, and I went up to the place and found a man sitting against the wall. Mrs Thompson was there alone with him, and I asked her if the man had had a fall, but she said she did not know. I asked her 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.” After that Dr. Maudsley came with Miss Pittard and Mr Cleveley. I helped the doctor to undress the man. I heard the doctor ask Mrs Thompson if he had been ill, and where they had come from. She told him that he had not been ill, and that they had come from the Criterion Theatre.

Cross-examined by Sir H. CURTIS-BENNETT — I have no doubt whatever that the voice I heard, “ Oh, don’t; oh, don’t”, was the voice of Mrs Thompson. It was about three or five minutes afterwards that I saw the three persons coming towards me. Mrs Thompson, who was in front, was sobbing and running hard. When I went across to where Mr Thompson was sitting on the pavement I found Mrs Thompson there, evidently waiting for assistance. I asked her if he had had a fall, and she said ” Yes — no — I don’t know.”

It was quite evident, was it not, that she was in a very agitated state at that time? — I should say she was almost hysterical.

The Recorder of 6 October 1922 confirms the gist of John Webber’s version by quoting his wife and also a nurse residing with the Webbers:

One of the first persons on the scene was a Mr John Webber, a gramophone sales manager. He was quickly joined by his wife, who was the only woman besides Mrs Thompson present.

‘We heard a woman scream piteously’, said Mrs Webber to an interviewer.  ‘My husband at once went out and I followed. We heard a doctor speak to a smartly-dressed woman, who was rocking herself to and fro, and hugging something in her arms.

I saw a man hatless and propped against the wall, and I found that the woman was really carrying the man’s hat and her own handbag.

I tried to comfort her, as she seemed terribly agitated, and she put her head on my shoulder. I held her for a minute or two.

When I asked her what was the matter she said, ‘We have been to town with a friend.’ To the doctor’s question as to how it happened she said, “I know nothing.”

When the stretcher was being moved off she said “Don’t take him away. I must go with him.” The police took her home.

A nurse residing with the Webbers states that when she first heard the woman screaming she thought she heard the word ‘Don’t!’

There is one minor contradiction in Webber’s evidence. Thus, while he correctly recalls Edith Thompson, Dora Pittard, and Percy Cleveley rushing towards him on their way to Maudsley’s surgery (which was in the street behind him), he implies that her running towards him and her striking a match to look at Percy are simultaneous events when in fact they were sequential. What happened is that she doubled back precipitately from Maudsley’s surgery, leaving Miss Pittard to rouse the doctor; which is why Maudsley recalled that he was summoned by Miss Pittard rather than Edith Thompson. Edith rushed back past Webber and was with Percy before Webber arrived on the scene. It was dark and at that stage Webber did not know what had happened or that there was a dying man on the pavement between Endsleigh and Kensington Gardens. It was Edith’s lighting a match that directed him towards the scene or the murder.

There is no conceivable prima facie reason for doubting the integrity of John Webber’s testimony. Yet that is precisely what Mr Justice Shearman set out to do in his summing up, by calling it a ‘very curious piece of evidence’, an oddity that could not be allowed to speak for itself. Here are Mr Justice Shearman’s own words:

Mr Justice Shearman’s summing-up of Webber’s evidence

[emphases are mine]

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 three or five 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 showing 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. The evidence is incompatible with the story that she was senseless and only recovered — you know her story, I need not go into that matter again – if she was pushed aside and damaged by a fall (and there is independent evidence she had a bruise). That does not prove how the bruise was given, 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 impossible that she could be saying, “ Don’t, don’t,” and she saw the blows struck. 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 that 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 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 to you the evidence of the witnesses, which prove what Mrs Thompson said after the act was done. All the witnesses say she was very agitated; some of the witnesses say she did not know what she was saying. The witness Doris [sic] Pittard is called, and she says this — “ I saw the woman running, and she met me 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 Mrs Thompson was running hard, she wanted help for her husband. Percy Cleveley said she said her husband had fallen down, and wanted help; he was ill; “ I want to find a doctor.” “ I asked her how it had happened. She said something 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. “I heard these words, ‘ Oh, don’t, don’t,’ in piteous tones,” and then I asked the distance off — and it was the corner house, the next corner of the road. [sic] “ The voice was Mrs Thompson’s.” 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. ’ ” 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 her husband was ill.

Those are the only four strangers who saw her. …

Now, gentlemen [sic], 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 showing, if she knew that the man was there. Everybody, the strangers, thought that he was ill, and she keeps them in that opinion — 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 them. It is said by the prosecution you cannot call witnesses to show what they did and what they were planning beforehand ; but you can show from beginning to end that 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.

Critique of the judge’s summary of John Webber’s evidence

The jury, Shearman emphasised, would need special discretion when interpreting Webber’s dubious testimony: they would need to be acutely sceptical and not construe it as mitigation of the accused woman guilt. Assuming that Webber can be credited at all. He may have been mistaken:

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;

The judge’s statement ‘I am not saying it is true’ is a  flagrant impugning of the integrity of Webber’s testimony. If instead Shearman had said ‘I am not saying it is not true’, that at least would have had a semblance of impartiality about it. But even that would not have been for him to say as not a shadow of a doubt was cast over Webber’s testimony by either the police or the Crown.

Having called into question the witness’s good faith, Shearman then proceeded to suggest that, assuming for a moment that Webber can be believed, this does not necessarily count in the accused woman’s favour. Her screaming and hysteria, he suggests, could all have been put on for show: after all, he points out, she did recognize the assailant: she admitted this in her revised statement to the police in Ilford. Moreover, she lied to Dr Maudsley and to other witnesses about the attack, claiming instead that her husband had been taken ill. So if she was hysterical, she was still rational and calculating enough to spin a web of lies about her husband being taken ill all of a sudden.

Above all, instructs the judge, if she did scream hysterically, she must have witnessed the murder. And yet she claimed to have been knocked to the ground and been momentarily ‘senseless’. Shearman hints that the bruise on Edith’s head need not be relevant. He concedes that it is genuine – his reference to ‘independent evidence’ alludes to the fact that it had been checked and confirmed by the matron at Ilford Police Station – but he almost goes so far as to imply that it may have been self-inflicted.

The judge’s direction to the jury with regard to John Webber’s evidence falls woefully short of accepted standards of fairness to the accused, and particularly in a murder trial where a human life was at stake. Shearman was not held in high regard for his forensic intelligence by his colleagues at the Bar. But his laying out for the jury of John Webber’s evidence is singularly objectionable and in its own way crudely calculated. At best it is verbose, muddled, and incoherent, when the jury was entitled to a lucid review of the evidence; at worst it is a deliberate attempt to confuse the jury about Webber’s evidence to the point where they would end up discarding it as they were trying to reach a verdict.

Mr Justice Shearman’s summing up included an uninformed caricature of Robert Hichens’s sub-Jamesian novels, an open disapproval of adultery, and gendered prejudices that even at the time had become anachronistic. But his distortion of John Webber’s evidence reflects a shocking attempt to discredit an honest man who did his civic duty on that terrible night of 3-4 October 1922. By doing what he did Shearman discredited justice itself.  He was meant to be the impartial presiding arbiter at the trial. Instead he joined the Crown and thus helped tie the noose around an innocent young woman’s neck.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

.