Derbyshire Murders

by Martin Baggoley

  It was obvious to Constable Sykes that death had not been due to an accident, natural causes or suicide, and that he was standing at the centre of a murder scene. He made an initial search and in an upstairs bedroom he found the deceased’s twenty-nine-year-old son, John Silk, asleep in his bed. He was wearing a blood-soaked shirt and trousers, and there were bloodstains on both of his hands.

  The officer shook the sleeping man vigorously, until he eventually woke up. Silk seemed genuinely surprised and distraught when advised of his mother’s death, but he was arrested on the spot on suspicion of being responsible. The two men went downstairs, and as they did so, the prisoner walked over towards the sink to wash the blood from his hands, but he was prevented from doing so by the officer.

  The police surgeon, Dr W.J. Symes arrived within minutes of the body being discovered. He was able to confirm that she had been killed on Saturday night. Externally, he discovered serious injuries to her head, face and throat, and her hair was matted with blood. There was a large bruise to the right side of her head, her right eye was badly damaged, there were large bruises to her left cheek and jaw, her nose was broken and her throat was bruised. There were extensive injuries to her right breast, right shin, and her left arm was bruised and badly cut.

  Later that afternoon Dr Symes performed a post-mortem. He found five broken ribs, the ends of which had been driven into her lungs, which as a result had been badly damaged. The external injuries together with the nature and extent of the internal damage had, Dr Symes concluded, resulted from great force being used by her assailant, who had probably jumped on her as she lay on the floor. Death was due to shock arising from the cumulative effects of her multiple injuries.

  Silk claimed to have no memory of the events of the previous night, but the police had little difficulty in finding several witnesses whose statements pointed to him as having been responsible for the crime.

  On the morning of the murder Silk had gone to work as usual and he arrived home at 1 p.m. He changed into his best clothes before visiting several local pubs. He was soon drunk and returned home a number of times during the late afternoon and early evening.

  Ruth Allsop lived next door to the Silk family, and she saw him in the house at eight o’clock in the evening, when she heard mother and son arguing. She heard him return two hours later, and from her window, Ruth saw his mother hand him a bottle, and ask him to fetch her half a noggin of whisky. He was drunk and refused her request, and grabbed the bottle from her hand before smashing it. He picked up several pieces of glass and threw them into her face, causing a number of cuts.

  Silk left the house and Ruth saw him meet his friends Daniel Meakin and Arthur Watson, with whom he continued drinking. His friends later told the police that in one pub they sat next to a courting couple, and Silk began flirting with the young woman. At first her companion did not seem too concerned, but Silk persisted in forcing his attention on her, and eventually the young man took exception to Silk’s behaviour and the two men began to quarrel. It seemed likely that a fight would follow, and as the argument continued, all five were ordered to leave the premises by the landlord.

  Silk would not let the matter drop and was determined to fight the other man on the pavement outside the pub. However, he was restrained by his friends, and the other man left the scene with his girlfriend. In his drunken rage, Silk screamed, ‘By Christ, there’ll be a murder in Spa Lane tonight!’ His friends tried unsuccessfully to calm him down, but he continued to struggle with them, and at last shouted, ‘It will be our old girl!’ His friends presumed this was the alcohol talking, and did not realise that this would prove to be more than an idle threat.

  Silk arrived home later to find his mother and their lodger Thomas Meakin sat at the table. Still drunk and quarrelsome, Silk complained to his mother about the poor light provided by the single gas lamp in the centre of the table. He leant over to turn up the flame, but his mother told him not to do so. Silk became even angrier and hit her on each side of her head with his open hand. Following this, he punched her to the floor, and in doing so knocked the table over and extinguished the lamp, leaving the room in darkness. Nevertheless, Thomas could hear the terrible beating continue, and heard the poor woman scream out, ‘Murder!’

  Thomas ran from the house in search of a police officer, and came upon Sergeant Prince. He informed the officer of what was happening, but the sergeant, who knew the Silks, refused to intervene, saying that this was nothing unusual when mother and son were drunk, and the argument would soon come to an end. Thomas returned to the house alone, and found it to be quiet and in darkness. He tried to gain entry but was unable to do so as the door was locked. Believing the argument had ended as the sergeant had predicted, Thomas went to a friend’s house where he spent the night. However, neighbours Emma Watson and Nelly Goodwin both later told the police that they had heard the sounds of a terrible argument and struggle resume later that night.

  Following the discovery of the body, Thomas briefly came under suspicion by some of the investigating police officers, due to what they claimed to be a significant inconsistency in his account. This was his claim to have found the door to the house locked, whereas Henry Dye had found it open a few hours later. However, he was quickly dismissed as a suspect, and how the door came to be open was to remain a mystery.

  Silk was committed to stand trial at the next assizes by the local magistrates and on a coroner’s warrant following a committal hearing and an inquest. At both tribunals he was found to have been responsible for his mother’s murder. The trial took place on 8 December and the judge was Mr Justice Bucknill. The Crown was represented by J.H. Etherington-Smith and the accused’s counsel was Dominic Daly.

  John Silk was the victim’s son from her first marriage, and he had served in the 5th Lancers for eight years with great distinction, before being honourably discharged from the Army in 1903. Prior to that he had served in India and in South Africa, where he saw action in the Boer War. In India he had suffered a lengthy and debilitating bout of enteritis, and while serving in Africa he had experienced a serious fever which had resulted in his weight dropping from thirteen stone to just seven.

  At the time of his discharge his mother had recently separated from her third husband, and it seemed logical that he, a single man, should live with her. Generally they lived together on good terms, and he gave her most of his wages. However, his dependence on alcohol had increased, and in tandem with this so did the level of his violence against her, which was described to the jury by two of his close relatives, John Canavan and Micheal O’Brien. They also described instances of bizarre behaviour by the accused when drunk. He would run through the streets yelling at the top of his voice, apparently believing that he was back in South Africa fighting the Boers.

  Both witnesses also confirmed that Mary had suffered from a serious drink problem, which had exacerbated the problems at home, as she too could be quarrelsome and aggressive when under the influence of alcohol. Michael told the court that he had seen Mary on the night of the murder and confirmed that she had been drunk. The defence also called a character witness, Henry Cain of the Chesterfield Board of Guardians, who had known Silk since his childhood. He told the court that before joining the Army he had been a ‘very good lad’, but following his discharge, his mental health had seemed to deteriorate badly. However, the defence did not call an expert witness to attempt to prove Silk had been insane, and appeared to be simply attempting to elicit some sympathy from the jury for their client.

  The prosecution, however, had little sympathy for the accused, and when addressing the jury, Mr Etherington-Smith said:

  I fail to see what could be advanced from the evidence to reduce the charge from anything but murder. If it were an excuse that because he had had enteritis in India and fever in South Africa, he was weakened by drink, and therefore not responsible for his actions, human life would not be safe.

  Mr Daly did not attempt to persuade the jury that Silk was not responsibl
e for his mother’s death when he addressed them. He suggested rather that manslaughter was the appropriate crime he should be convicted of, as there had been no malice aforethought, and there was no evidence that he had borne his mother any ill will. However, in his summing up, the judge made it clear that he was not impressed by the defence argument. He reminded the jury that there had been no evidence provided to support the claim that the accused did not fully know what he was doing, or what the consequences of his actions would be.

  After retiring for fifteen minutes the jury returned with a guilty verdict. In sentencing him to death the judge told Silk, ‘The jury has found you guilty of taking the life of your mother under exceptionally brutal circumstances. I can hold out no hope of mercy for you in this world. She got no mercy from you, nor shall you get any from man.’

  Despite the judge’s suggestion that there was little hope of avoiding the noose, a number of his friends and relatives organised a petition. However, it received hardly any support from the wider public, and it soon became clear that he would inevitably hang for his crime. Nevertheless, he continued to receive much support from his family members who visited him regularly in the condemned cell at Derby Gaol.

  He also corresponded with family and friends, and he sent this moving letter to his grandmother:

  Dear Grandmother,

  I have received your letter all right, and I write in return to let you know that I am all right and keeping well in health, thank God for it. I am sorry to hear that you are ill, and I hope that this will find you better, and that God will spare you to your family for some considerable time. I pray you do not let your heart grieve too much in this your great trouble, but rather hope that it is all for the best, and that God in His infinite mercy will help us to bear it patiently and bravely for His sake. I am happy to be able to inform you that I have received the Blessed Sacrament this morning, and feel a great peace in my heart. You know how we feel, or perhaps how we ought to after having attended to this great duty, and I think you will be cheered up by the knowledge of it. I hope Uncle John is all right, and I have to thank him for his kindness to me and I hope he will be rewarded for it in the time to come. I wish you would let me know which of you and how many wish to come and see me, so that I can let the governor know definitely how many to send permits for. You can’t all come at once. I think so many come at a time would be best. I don’t think I need say a deal more at present except to send you all my best love and heartiest good wishes. I remain your affectionate grandson.

  John

  Nevertheless, as his execution drew nearer, Silk decided not to see any of his family, in the hope of saving them from any further distress than necessary. On the final family visit he assured his relatives that he would die like a soldier.

  The condemned’s execution, which was to be carried out by Thomas Pierrepoint assisted by John Ellis was set for 8 o’clock on the morning of Friday, 29 December 1905. The four journalists who gathered at the scene on a cold wet and misty morning later confirmed that he did indeed die bravely.

  A crowd of several hundred waited outside the gates of the gaol, waiting for the black flag to be raised confirming that the execution had taken place. However, they waited in vain as the governor had decided to dispense with this morbid custom.

  14

  THE DISAPPEARANCES

  Glossop, 1923

  Thomas Wood, who lived at his family home, 96 Back Kershaw Street, Glossop, was not quite four years old, but he was allowed to play out on his own by his parents. They were not unduly worried therefore when he ran out of the house on the morning of Sunday, 4 March 1923. He did not come home for his lunch, but he often ate at his grandmother’s house, which was nearby. However, he had not returned by the early evening, and his parents learnt from his grandmother that he had not visited her that day.

  Now deeply worried, his parents alerted the police and a search was begun immediately. As news of his disappearance spread throughout the close-knit community, it was not long before many volunteers offered their services to look for the missing youngster. Albert Burrows, who lived next door to the Woods at no. 94, reported seeing the boy that afternoon on Slatelands Road. This was a cause of some concern, for a stream ran alongside a stretch of that road which came down from the hills and eventually joined the River Etherow. For some days, the stream had been a fast flowing torrent due to a combination of recent heavy rains and the melting of a large amount of snow that had fallen two weeks earlier.

  It was feared that Tommy may have fallen into the stream and been swept away, for he would have had very little chance of survival. The search centred on the stream and river for the next few days, and they were dragged repeatedly. A local resident loaned his bloodhound to help in the search, but no trace of Tommy was found. Given the lack of success in finding the boy, it was decided to widen the search.

  The Nab. (Author’s collection)

  The police received new information suggesting that Tommy had been seen close to two disused mine shafts which were situated about a half mile from Simmondley on the Charlesworth Road at the foot of a hill, known locally as the Nab. It was feared that he might have fallen down one of them, for despite the dangers, access was relatively easy. Also it would not have been difficult for anyone who had harmed the youngster, to throw him into one of the shafts. On Monday, 12 March, a grappling iron was thrown down one of the shafts, but the rope snapped and it was decided to make another attempt the following morning.

  Inspector Chadwick, who was responsible for the search, passed the other disused shaft, the wall surrounding which was 6ft in height. He noticed that in one spot, about 2ft from the ground, a number of bricks had been removed, and the hole was large enough for someone to crawl through. He was with Herbert Collier, one of the volunteers who knew the area well, and he confirmed that the breach in the wall had appeared within the last fortnight. The inspector decided that on the following day, he would start by investigating that shaft.

  The next morning, the grappling iron was cast down into the shaft and immediately fastened onto an object. This was raised but it was found to be a container full of stones. The iron was thrown down for a second time, and very quickly attached itself to something else. This was raised very carefully and on reaching the surface it could be seen that at the rope’s end, caught on the iron by the trousers, was the body of a little boy. This was witnessed by a large crowd of spectators who had gathered at the site, and among them was Tommy’s uncle who identified the body as that of his nephew.

  This was now a murder enquiry and suspicion fell on Albert Burrows, who had often taken Tommy for walks with the agreement of his parents. Initially he told police that he had not taken him out walking on the day he disappeared. However, several witnesses, including Samuel Robinson and Jane Sidebotham, reported seeing Burrows with a young boy, to whom he gave an apple, on the morning of Tommy’s disappearance. Although none of these could say definitely that the boy was Tommy, it certainly served to increase the police interest in Burrows. This was especially so when another witness, Fred Burgess remembered seeing Burrows with a boy earlier in the day, and walking back into town later, on his own from the direction of Simmondley. John Pale reported that he too had met Burrows that afternoon, who said, ‘If you see Tommy Wood, send him home, he’s lost’.

  When the police confronted him with this information, Burrows changed his story and admitted that he had taken the youngster for a walk to the fields at Simmondley, close to the two disused pit shafts. There, Burrows insisted that he had left Tommy in a hollow while he went to catch a rabbit. When Burrows returned to the spot fifteen minutes later, Tommy had disappeared. This did not satisfy Inspector Chadwick who believed that Burrows knew more than he was prepared to admit, and he ordered that his movements be watched.

  Burrows was under police surveillance at the time that Tommy’s body was removed from the shaft, and the inspector knew he was watching from a distance despite attempting to hide himself from view. When he
saw Tommy’s body being laid out on the ground, Burrows began to hurry away from the scene, and the inspector ordered his men to detain him. A section of the crowd noticed what was happening and they also began to chase Burrows who was now running as fast as he could.

  The following day’s newspaper reports described Burrows being apprehended by a group of local men, who handed him over to the police, when the officers arrived at the scene several minutes later. However, there was a determined attempt to hang Burrows from a nearby tree, and if the police had arrived any later he may well have been lynched. Burrows reportedly told his captors, ‘I don’t know what made me do it’ and pleaded for mercy. One of the crowd retorted, ‘You didn’t show much mercy to little Tommy’.

  Now in handcuffs, Burrows was taken to Glossop in an open lorry, and a large number of angry local people lined the route and shouted abuse and threats at him. Others threw objects at him, and in response, he shook his fists at his tormentors and referring to the notorious Victorian murderer, shouted, ‘I shan’t tremble on the scaffold like Charlie Peace!’

  Despite being arrested, Burrows was not immediately charged with Tommy’s murder. During the following two weeks, he made several appearances before the local magistrates and also before Mr G.H. Wilson, the Deputy Coroner of the High Peak District. Whenever he appeared he was confronted by a large and hostile crowd, and on every occasion he continued to be abused and have missiles thrown at him. There were real fears as to what might happen to him on these occasions, and the police had to resort to decoy vehicles to ensure his safety as he travelled between Strangeways Prison in Manchester, where he was being held, and the hearings in Glossop.

  Dr J.H. Dible, Professor of Pathology at Manchester University performed a post-mortem on Tommy on 15 March, at which he was accompanied by the local police surgeon, Dr E. Milligan. Tommy was found to have been a well-nourished and healthy youngster before his death. The soddened condition of his skin confirmed that he had been immersed in water for several days prior to the body being discovered. Dr Dible found several external injuries, which had been caused before death. No bones had been broken, but there were bruises on his left shoulder, on the underside of his knees, and to his head and ears. Internally, the air passages were not obstructed, and showed no signs of violence. An examination of his stomach contents revealed partially digested pieces of apple. Dr Dible concluded that drowning had been the cause of death. Dr Millgan testified before the coroner’s jury that he and Dr Dible had discovered internal injuries to Tommy which could only have been due to a serious sexual assault having been committed against him, shortly before his death.