Other members of the jury entered the debate, and Henry Kent blamed Mr Astle, whom he believed had refused to carry out the responsibilities of jury foreman, which led to the need for a ballot to select one. He insisted that there had been no deciding vote, and that before leaving the jury room, each jury member had agreed with the murder verdict.
Joseph Mitchell Tempest claimed that the initial vote had been split evenly, but one of their number wavered and this meant there was a majority of seven to five favouring a murder verdict. After further fruitless discussion and Mr Astle’s refusal to act as chairman, it was decided to cast lots for the position. Nevertheless, he was adamant that this was not done with a view to having a deciding vote. He further insisted that their discussions had led to all of the jury members favouring a murder verdict.
However, there was a widespread feeling that although differing accounts had been given by some jury members, they had acted inappropriately. There remained the suspicion that those who had changed their positions to favouring a finding of murder had not done so because of rational argument heard in the courtroom, but rather to simply break the deadlock. It was clear that the Home Secretary could not ignore the situation as he decided upon the fate of Mainwaring.
As the controversy continued, a petition was started by Mr Hextall, which read as follows:
The humble petition and memorials of the undersigned inhabitants of Derby showeth;
1. That we have read the reports of the trial at the Derby Assizes, on the 31st day of July 1879 of Gerald Mainwaring for the wilful murder of Joseph Moss.
2. That having regard to the state of complete drunkenness under which the said Gerald Mainwaring suffered at the time he committed the act which resulted in the death of the deceased man, Moss, we feel compelled to express our thorough belief that the said Gerald Mainwaring was not at the time conscious of what would be the probable effects of the act he did, and that the said act was in that sense involuntary on his part.
3. That we believe the said Gerald Mainwaring had no deliberate intentions of doing harm to any person.
4. We believe that in the above expressions of opinion we correctly represent the sentiments of an overwhelming majority of those who have carefully read the reports of the said trial.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will be pleased to advise Her Majesty to remit the sentence of death under which the said Gerald Mainwaring now lies, and your petitioners will ever pray.
Another local man, Thomas Spooner Litherland, had been sentenced to death for the murder of his wife at the same assizes as Mainwaring. He was well known in the town and it was recognised that there was a history of mental illness in his family, and that he had suffered similarly. There was thus a great deal of support favouring a reprieve for him also. A mass public meeting was held in the Market Place on Thursday, 7 August, which was addressed by the Revd W. Wilkinson and Councillor Holmes. The petitions in favour of reprieves for both men, who were due to be hanged together on the following Monday morning, were sent for the Home Secretary to consider.
A total of 5,720 signed Mainwaring’s petition, and given the difficult situation the jury’s behaviour had placed him in, it came as no surprise when the Home Secretary decided that Mainwaring would not stand on the scaffold of Derby Gaol, and his sentence was commuted to one of life imprisonment. Litherland was also reprieved and sent to Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. Mainwaring served fifteen years in prison and was released on licence in May 1894.
7
A MURDER OF SINGULAR ATROCITY
Derby, 1880
James Wilkinson earned his living by making comb-boxes, and in March 1880, having recently moved from Newcastle, he was living at 67 Bridge Street in Derby with his wife, son and two daughters. His eldest daughter Elizabeth, who was sixteen years old, hawked her father’s combboxes, which cost one penny each, from door to door. James decided that it was time that his youngest daughter Eliza, who had celebrated her eighth birthday on 8 February, help her sister sell his wares.
At nine o’clock on the morning of Monday, 26 April, Eliza left the family home with Elizabeth for only the second time. The eldest girl had thirteen of her father’s comb-boxes to sell, and Eliza had just one. Within three hours this poor but happy and loving family would be devastated by what a local journalist described as ‘a shocking murder, committed under circumstances of singular atrocity’.
One hour after leaving home, there were only two comb-boxes left to sell, and the girls found themselves on Green Street. Each took one of the comb-boxes and chose the houses each would call at, and agreed to meet when they had called at all of the houses or sold the boxes. At eleven o’clock, having waited several minutes for her sister, Elizabeth decided to go and look for her. She knocked on several doors along the route Eliza would have taken, and at one of the houses, Mary Ann Keeling informed her that Eliza had called at her house a few minutes earlier, and after telling her she did not wish to buy anything, she watched as the little girl walked down a passage leading off Green Street and into Tan Yard.
Elizabeth entered the yard but as there was no sign of her sister, she decided to go home in case she had made her own way back. Finding that she was not there, her brother James left with Elizabeth to search for their sister once again. Their parents remained in the house in case Eliza returned there.
James Wilkinson moved to Derby with his young family with high hopes, but suffered a great tragedy. (Author’s collection)
As the brother and sister reached Green Street, they were approached by a woman who knew them, to say that a young girl fitting their sister’s description had just been murdered. They rushed to Tan Yard where they were met by the imposing figure of the town’s chief constable, Colonel William Addis Delacombe, who told James to return home and advise his parents to come as quickly as possible. Eliza’s father arrived soon afterwards, and following a brief discussion with the chief constable and Detective Inspector Spibey, he was led into one of the nearby dwellings, 1 Court House. There, the devastated father was confronted by the sight of his youngest daughter’s lifeless body.
The house in which the body had been discovered was the home of the Wakefield family, and it had been John Wakefield, who lived there with his widowed mother and brother, who a few minutes earlier had walked into the nearby police station. He had approached the desk, where he told Inspector Barnes, ‘I want to see the superintendent very particularly’. When asked for what reason, he replied, ‘I have committed a murder’.
However, Wakefield appeared to be so calm and unconcerned as he spoke, that the inspector did not initially believe him, and thought that he was one of those odd individuals who occasionally visited the station, claiming to have committed a terrible crime simply to draw attention to themselves. However, Wakefield persisted by saying, ‘This is not a fallacy, it’s true.’ The inspector remained sceptical but summoned Colonel Delacombe, who questioned Wakefield more closely. Wakefield persisted with his claim, stating, ‘I have committed a murder at my mother’s house. You had better go and see for yourself.’
John Wakefield. (The Illustrated Police News)
Tan Yard, off Green Street, where the terrible crime took place. (The Illustrated Police News)
Colonel Delacombe did so, and, finding Eliza’s body lying in one of the downstairs rooms, discovered that Wakefield’s account was true. Having broken the news to her father, the chief constable returned to the police station where, on the strength of his spoken confession, he charged Wakefield with the murder.
The scene of the crime was a horrific sight. Eliza, whose throat had been cut, was lying on her back in a large pool of blood at the bottom of the stairs, which led to the bedrooms. Still wearing her bonnet, her head was turned towards the right side, and in her hand she was holding a halfpenny. Close to the body was a dinner knife, covered with blood, and the comb-box she had hoped to sell when calling at the house, was on a table, upon which there was a bowl of freshly peeled potatoes. In
a corner of the room was a bucket full of water which was red with blood, suggesting to the police that Wakefield had washed his hands in it after committing the murder.
It was quickly surmised that Eliza must have knocked on the door, and had been enticed in by her killer by the promise of a halfpenny for the comb-box. Once inside the house, she had been murdered almost immediately.
Other evidence incriminating their prisoner was discovered when Wakefield was searched by Sergeant Joseph Stewartson, who found bloodstains on the left sleeve of his shirt, and although he had washed his hands following the crime, dried blood remained under his fingernails.
Colonel Delacombe had called for Dr Sharpe to attend the murder scene, and he found the body to be still warm. There were two knife wounds to the right side of the neck. However, he would discover later, having performed a post-mortem, that it was two wounds to the left side of the neck that had been the cause of death. One of these had severed her windpipe, and the knife had entered the gullet. One had been struck with such force that the point of the knife had emerged from the opposite side of the little girl’s neck. The jugular vein had been severed and death had almost certainly been instantaneous.
The doctor found another knife wound to her right shoulder which had not been fatal, and which had probably resulted from the struggle Eliza had put up before being overpowered by her killer. There were also bruises to her knees and elbows, and another on her upper right arm. At the chief constable’s request, the doctor examined the body for any signs of rape, and although there was a small bruise on her abdomen, there was no evidence that a sexual crime had been committed.
Thirty-year-old John Wakefield, the man being held on suspicion of murdering Eliza, had a reputation for being lazy, with an aversion to work, and of being a rather strange individual. A loner, it had been seven years since his last job, and when his mother and brother, Arthur, were out at work during the day, he would perform household tasks such as washing and shopping. He read constantly, especially the Bible, and visited the Free Library every day. When his mother and brother returned in the evening John would go to bed.
He was given to violent outbursts, and his family were said to be extremely frightened of him at such times. On one occasion his brother reported finding a rope suspended in the suspect’s bedroom as though he had been contemplating suicide, but Arthur removed it before it could be used.
The police had no other avenues to investigate, as they had the prisoner’s confession together with overwhelming circumstantial evidence. However, they could find no motive for the crime, as there were no signs of rape or attempted sexual contact, and Elizabeth confirmed that she had all of the cash from their sales that morning, which excluded robbery as a reason for the crime. Furthermore, Wakefield had been sober at the time the murder was committed, so alcohol was not a contributory factor to the vicious attack.
Wakefield appeared before the magistrates in a crowded court the following day. Throughout the proceedings he appeared unconcerned at what was happening around him. The chief constable provided sufficient information to demonstrate a prima facie case against the accused, and sought an adjournment so that further enquiries could be made, and also to allow sufficient time for the inquest to take place. The case was therefore adjourned until the following Thursday.
The inquest was held on the following day in the Guildhall’s Grand Jury Room. Having listened to the police evidence and the details provided of her wounds, the jury took only three minutes to find that Eliza had been murdered by John Wakefield. At the adjourned hearing before the magistrates, he was also committed to stand trial at the Derby Assizes. He appeared disinterested at both of these hearings and ignored the loud hisses from those in the courtroom that greeted his removal from the dock.
Eliza’s funeral took place on the same day as the second hearing before the magistrates, and the cost was paid by Mr Sutton, the son of the landlord of the house in which the Wilkinsons were living. The body had been taken from the mortuary to the house on Bridge Street, from where the procession started its sad journey. The entire route to the Nottingham Road Cemetery was thronged with thousands of people, and there was a large crowd at the graveside, all of whom experienced an intensely emotional occasion.
Wakefield’s trial took place before Baron Huddleston on Thursday, 29 July, and J.H. Etherington-Smith prosecuted. Wakefield, who pleaded not guilty, had insufficient funds to employ an advocate to act on his behalf. The judge therefore asked Mr Stranger to represent the prisoner, and despite the lack of time he had to prepare his case, the barrister represented his newly acquired client as best he could.
The Crown opened by telling the jury that although there had been no eyewitness to the crime, there was overwhelming circumstantial evidence against the man in the dock. It was acknowledged that the Crown could not provide a motive for the crime, but emphasised that it was not necessary to do so.
The jury listened intently to the testimony of the deceased’s sister, the police officers to whom Wakefield had made his confession, and the medical evidence, all of which went largely unchallenged by the defence. Instead, Mr Stranger, who did not attempt to suggest that his client had not killed Eliza, opted for a defence of insanity. Despite the short time spent on the case, he arranged for Dr Wright Baker, surgeon at Derby Gaol to attend the trial. The doctor testified that during his career he had met many murderers who committed motiveless crimes under an uncontrollable impulse. The judge intervened by stating that every act was done under some form of impulse or other.
Ignoring the judge’s interruption, the doctor continued his testimony by stating that in his opinion Wakefield had acted under such an impulse, and he highlighted the absence of a motive, the absence of any attempt at concealment of the crime, and the lack of interest shown by the prisoner at previous hearings, which was also evident from his demeanour during the trial.
At the conclusion of the evidence, both advocates addressed the jury. Mr Stranger insisted that his client was insane, and all of the features of the murder, and the defendant’s subsequent behaviour, suggested that he had not been responsible for his actions. Mr Etherington-Smith simply pointed to the overwhelming evidence against him and the absence of any proof that he was insane.
In his summing up, Baron Huddleston focused on the issue of Wakefield’s state of mind at the time of the murder. He urged the jury not to be misled by what he described as fanciful theories. He referred to what he described as Dr Baker’s startling theory, and asked what was the meaning of a so-called uncontrollable impulse. He had said it stemmed from a lack of self-control, but that, the judge continued, was the case with any crime that was committed. As far as the prisoner was concerned, there was no proof of any hereditary insanity, and it would therefore be unwise to give the doctor’s theory any credibility.
If people always controlled their passions, the judge argued, there would be no crime. However, it was because people lost control that gave rise to the promptings of their evil nature, that crimes, including murder, were committed. If people who could not control their passions were not to be punished, because of a lack of self-control, lunatic asylums would have to be built across the nation rather than prisons. Furthermore, rather than juries deciding the fate of an accused, it would be doctors doing so.
His duty, he continued, was to tell the jury what the law stated. Every accused individual was presumed to be sane unless the contrary was shown to be the case, based on evidence presented at the trial. The process for deciding if an accused person was sane or otherwise had been laid down by the House of Lords. This meant that the jury had to decide whether the accused had a sufficient degree of reason to know that he or she was doing wrong. If satisfied that the answer was in the affirmative, the jury must convict him.
The jury deliberated for ten minutes before returning with a guilty verdict, and there was no recommendation for mercy. The judge donned his black cap and told Wakefield:
Prisoner at the bar, I do not wish to ad
d to your misery at this moment. What was your object in taking away the life of this happy little girl must to most minds be a matter of conjecture. That you bargained with her for that little comb-box, gave her that halfpenny and that you then murdered her in the most brutal manner, and then simply by conscience gave yourself up, is all we know of the facts. I have but one duty to perform; it is incumbent upon me in the position I hold, but as a fellow man, let me ask you to avail yourself of the time that is left before the sentence of the court is carried out, to prepare yourself to meet your Maker. Repentance is open to you, and that is now your only prospect. The sentence of the Court upon you for the crime of wilful murder of which you have now been convicted, is that you be taken from this place where you are now to the prison from whence you came, and that on a day appointed you shall be taken to a suitable place of execution and be there hanged by the neck.
It was clear from the judge’s comments that the prospect of a reprieve was negligible. However, despite this and the absence of a recommendation for mercy by the jury, a petition to save Wakefield’s life was started. It was drawn up by his solicitor, Mr Wheatcroft, who continued to claim that his client was insane, using new information provided by Wakefield’s mother. She also wrote a personal letter to the Home Secretary claiming that in the weeks leading up to the murder, she had noticed that her son had been acting in a peculiar manner. He had gone several days without eating, and there had been a number of violent outbursts for no apparent reason. She believed this gave credence to the claim that her son was insane, and that the crime had resulted from an uncontrollable impulse. If the jury had been aware of this information, she believed a different verdict might have been reached.
Derbyshire Murders Page 8