Cambridgeshire Murders

by Alison Bruce

  The jury retired, but after only twelve minutes they returned with their verdict. Their conclusion was that Mr Kunne had ‘intentionally and with malice’ killed Warnes before killing himself. ‘Had he’, the coroner asked the jury, ‘at the time he committed the crime, full possession of his mental faculties?’

  ‘Yes,’ replied Mr Meadows, the foreman.

  A verdict of murder and felo de se1 was recorded and the inquest was concluded at 7.25 p.m.

  Warnes was buried in the afternoon of Wednesday 5 February. The cortege left from outside the Temperance Hotel at just after 2 p.m. and the Revd O.W. Wilde conducted the service in front of a packed church. At the cemetery over 200 people were present along with the family mourners who included Warnes’ three brothers and one sister, their spouses and children.

  The inscription on the coffin read

  In loving memory of

  ELIZABETH WARNES

  Died February 1st 1913

  Aged 46 years

  Three wreaths accompanied the coffin and these read ‘With deepest sympathy from brother Walter, wife and family’, ‘In loving memory from brother George and family’ and ‘In loving memory of our dear sister, from brother Harry and family’.

  By contrast, at the funeral of Kunne, held the next day, only his employer, Mr Wootten and Frederick Finke, were mourners. The grave was dug in the north-east corner of the cemetery. Although a large crowd had gathered to watch the burial they remained silent throughout.

  Because of the haste with which the inquest was concluded rumours persisted that the final verdict may not have been correct. These included various inaccuracies, such as reports of the lamp mysteriously being re-lit by the time the bodies were discovered.

  Warnes’s husband and the woman she went out with were never called to give evidence. There was no explanation as to why the rear door had been left unlocked. The evidence given was circumstantial but from the history of their relationship and the evidence pointing to Kunne’s foul temper and jealousy, his actions were necessarily not out of place. But there is no doubt that the inquest could have been more thorough and had modern forensic techniques been available the conclusions drawn would have been less questionable.

  There are several ways that the final moments of their lives can be pictured but it is difficult to envisage a scenario that includes the lamp being righted once the attack began. If Warnes had been stabbed while sitting, then the lamp could not have been broken beforehand as the glass was on the seat of her chair.

  Notes

  1 Felo de se: suicide; formerly a criminal act in the UK, but repealed in 1961.

  11

  EAT, DRINK AND BE MURDERED

  Although the last execution of a Cambridge murderer occurred in the 1930s it was in 1913 that the last execution took place in Cambridgeshire itself. The village of Brampton is in the north of Cambridgeshire and every year held its annual feast. The festivities usually continued well into the night and, for many feast-goers, part of the attraction included the opportunity to consume plenty of alcohol.

  Two of those attending the spectacle, Frederick and Martha Jane Seekings, were assumed to be man and wife. Frederick was variously reported to be between 35 and 39 years old, and originally from the Chatteris area. He was later described by the rector of Brampton, Revd Knowles, as a man with no friends and only a small intellect to whom it was necessary to speak as if to a child.

  Martha meanwhile was in her mid-forties and by the standards of the day had led a wild life. After her death it transpired that she and Frederick had never been married and her correct surname was Beeby. She had been born to Thomas and Charlotte Gunn of Denford near Thrapston. Martha married Leonard Beeby and they had four children, three of whom were still alive at the time of her death. The family moved to Desborough and then Rothwell, from where, in 1894, she ran off with a showman called Blott. Leonard had not heard from his wife but thought that she had then lived with another man before Seekings.

  Beeby and Seekings were together for many years, living together in Alconbury before moving to Brampton in 1906 or 1907. Also living with them was a 16-year-old lad named John Thomas Beeby who referred to them as his aunt and uncle. But he may well have been one of Martha’s children.

  The couple were well known for their heavy drinking. Rumours flew around the village that their excessive drinking was fuelling nasty quarrels between them. One person with a first-hand example of this was Robert Reedman who worked in the village as the chimney sweep. On asking her if she was going to the feast, Martha replied, ‘Yes, I’m going if I live, and if I go there my old man says he will cut my ******* head off.’ Reedman did not take the comment seriously but, when he recalled it at the inquest into her death, less than a week later, he must have wondered whether he had made a grave error of judgement.

  On the feast day, Monday 28 July 1913, Seekings had been working with another labourer, Albert Wood. They had been thatching a haystack for a man by the name of Tom Stocker, the local butcher. They had worked until nearly 8 p.m. before making their way to the Bell Inn where Stocker’s mother was landlady. During the day Wood saw Seekings drinking three pints of stout but was unsure how much more he had drunk between his arrival and closing time.

  Shortly after eight Beeby strode into the pub and joined him. ‘Oh, this is where I find you,’ she exclaimed, before ordering herself a glass of beer.

  By closing time (10 p.m.) there were varying reports on how much alcohol each had imbibed. Woods thought Seekings seemed sober but could not be sure about Martha. Tom Stocker, though, thought she was definitely not drunk.

  In contradiction to this Edward Abrahams, who saw them outside the Bell just after ten, considered them both to be drunk. They had only just left the building when they both fell down. About five minutes later, but only ten yards further along the road, Beeby fell again, this time into a hedge. One of the staff from the Bell, known only as ‘Cockney’, helped to pull her up. When Seekings came up to her, they both fell into the hedge yet again.

  The murder of Martha Jane Beeby. (Police Illustrated News)

  Stocker had noticed that Seekings was upset. He judged the reason to be that it was because Martha had decided to attend the feast. When he saw Seekings shove her and her fall into the hedge, he intervened and offered to see them home. Stocker helped to pull her out; he took one of her arms and linked his other arm through Seekings’. They walked along the road together for a short distance before Seekings pushed her again. At this point Stocker decided to leave them to make their own way home. This was the last time she was seen alive by anyone other than Seekings.

  After leaving the pub Abrahams returned home to have supper with his wife before the two of them, and their neighbour Ernest Favell, returned to the feast. The Abrahams walked around the feast field and went on the joy-wheel together before meeting up with Favell again and returning home.

  They were back home shortly after eleven. When they arrived Favell’s wife told them that somebody ‘had been rumbling around the house’ and asked them to investigate. The two men took a bicycle lamp and walked along the Thrapston Road. Within a hundred yards they saw Beeby lying on her back on the grass verge. Seekings was lying across the lower part of her body with his left arm around her legs and his right arm along the side of her body.

  Abrahams called out Seekings’ name several times before he moved. Abrahams shone the torch on the prone woman then bent down and touched her face; it was cold and he knew at once that she was already dead.

  Favell took the lamp and waited a few yards from the body while Abrahams returned to the feast field where he found Sergeant Dighton and Constable Landin of the local police force. When the two officers arrived at the scene of the crime Seekings was initially uncooperative and addressed them with a stream of obscenities.

  Dighton’s view was of a woman, lying on her back, with her head towards the road. Her left leg was hooked around the right. Her dress skirt was off and lying over her shoulders, throat and
face. Her petticoat was partly pulled off. The sleeve of the coat was off her right arm and her other clothing was disarranged. Her hat was on the grass on her left, about a yard away. He raised the dress skirt from her face and found her head, hair and face smothered with blood. Her throat was cut and a jagged wound ran from the right side of the wind-pipe and extended around the throat beyond the back of the left ear. The arteries appeared to be severed. There was a good deal of blood in pools on the grass and a struggle appeared to have taken place. The woman lay with her arms outstretched, and Dighton did not notice any blood on her hands. Seekings was on the left side of the woman, with his right arm under the lower part of her body. Dighton warned him that what had happened was a very serious matter and cautioned him.

  Seekings replied. ‘I didn’t do it. She took the knife away from me and done it herself.’ He then claimed that the knife was lying somewhere nearby. But after the police were unable to locate it they decided to search their prisoner. Seekings began swearing and attempted to resist but the knife was soon found in his left trouser pocket. It was a closed clasp knife that was smothered in blood. There were also bloodstains on Seekings’ shirtsleeves, neckerchief, coat, arm and forearm and down the left side of his face.

  The search of Seekings also revealed a pint bottle of beer and another bottle on the grass. While they waited for transport the prisoner kept swearing and asking for alcohol. Despite his unruly behaviour he was able to get into the cart without assistance and on the way to Huntingdon police station he kept repeating that he had not harmed her. He was adamant in his belief that Beeby had taken the knife away and killed herself.

  Beeby’s body was taken to Seekings’ house where her clothes were searched. She was found to have 6d plus a few copper coins in her pockets. Dr McRitchie arrived the following morning and examined the body as it lay on a table. He determined that death had been almost instantaneous and caused by a deep 6in knife wound which had run from the right side of her neck to the left. The carotid artery had been severed and the windpipe sliced in two. Based on the position, depth and direction of the wound he concluded that it had not been self-inflicted but was the result of a murderous assault.

  By the end of the week the coroner had held an inquest. He directed the jury to determine whether Seekings had murdered Beeby or if she had committed suicide. He instructed them not to consider any other possibilities. They returned eight minutes later for the foreman announced their verdict: ‘the deceased met her death at the hands of Seekings while both were under the influence of drink.’

  On Thursday 31 July Beeby was buried in Brampton. Two days later, on Saturday 2 August, Seekings was removed to the county gaol in Cambridge to await trial at the next assizes.

  On Tuesday 14 October Seekings’ trial opened with Justice Bray presiding. Beaumont Monie stood for the prosecution and Grafton Pryor for the defence.

  John Beeby was the first witness called and confirmed that he had lived at Brampton for about seven years with Frederick and Martha Seekings. He had last seen Martha between 8.30 and 9.00 p.m. on the feast night and did not know if she had been drinking but had seen her drunk with Seekings on a couple of previous occasions.

  Grafton Pryor asked whether Beeby had ever made any lurid claims or threats when under the influence of drink. John replied that she had threatened to kill herself, possibly by drowning. He went on to say that he had had to take a carving knife off her before because he feared that she would do something rash. Asked whether she would have gone through with committing suicide, the witness added: ‘I do not think she would, because she often used to wink at me.’ The latest event had occurred just the day before the feast.

  Stocker was called to explain how he had helped the couple along the road, and it soon transpired that his actions had not been completely altruistic; he had wanted to make sure that Seekings would be fit to work the next day. He had been concerned that a late night at the feast would have meant that the thatching on his barn would not be completed. Stocker repeated that he did not think either Beeby or Seekings were drunk, nor had they argued, but that Seekings had seemed irritated at her presence at the fair. He probably even considered that the couple’s pushing and falling over antics were more like horseplay than serious aggression. This was because the second time it happened Stocker had said: ‘If you are going to act the fool, I’m off.’ After which they had both walked away ‘as nice as anything’.

  Nothing varied in the accounts of the witnesses who had seen the couple leaving the Bell Inn or those who had discovered the body and subsequently gone for help. Favell though added that he thought Seekings had actually gone to sleep while they waited for Abrahams to return with the police officers.

  A major part of the trial concentrated on trying to establish just how drunk the couple had been. The various witnesses and their definitions of drunkenness hampered this. In a rare light-hearted moment at the trial Alfred Wood, the labourer who had been working with Seekings on the day, explained that occasionally Seekings and he had drunk similar amounts: three pints during the day, then another three in the evening.

  Justice Pryor asked Woods whether Seekings had been drunk. Wood explained, ‘Just the same as I was. He was not drunk and he was not sober’ and confirmed that meant that Seekings was capable of standing up. Pryor asked for clarification: ‘And is it your view that as long as a man can stand up he is not drunk?’ Wood laughed the affirmative. Bray then asked him what condition he had been in when he went to the house. Wood’s response amused both the courthouse and the judge: ‘As sober as a judge.’

  Overall there was no consensus among the witnesses about either the amount of alcohol that Seekings had consumed or the extent to which he was inebriated. Sergeant Dighton had thought that Seekings was fairly sober: he had needed no assistance as he climbed in and out of the high trade cart that had transported him to Huntingdon police station and he had walked without staggering. In the policeman’s opinion Seekings certainly had had some drink, but would have been sober enough to have known what he was doing.

  Dighton was asked by the defence to consider whether the shock of finding his wife with her throat cut would have been sufficient to sober Seekings. The sergeant remained dubious; he felt that the prisoner seemed too callous to feel that shocked.

  Although the doctor, McRitchie, agreed with the defence on this point he maintained that he could not envisage the fatal wound being self-inflicted.

  When Seekings himself finally took the stand he admitted that he was the worse for drink ‘or I should not have done such a thing, if I did do it. I don’t remember doing it.’

  The prosecution asked the jury to accept that the evidence showed that the wound had not been self-inflicted and that Seekings, while showing some signs of intoxication, was not so drunk that he was not aware or responsible for his actions. The defence, on the other hand, argued that in a charge of wilful murder there must be malice aforethought or premeditation, and without this the charge must be manslaughter. He asked the jury to apply the lesser charge if indeed they did decide that Beeby had died by Seekings’ hand. He asked them to consider Seekings’ drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance and sought to play down claims by Stocker and Wood that Seekings appeared sober: as Stocker was the landlady’s son and Wood was her employee they both had an interest in maintaining the good reputation of the pub. He also asked the jury how many sober people fell three times in quick succession.

  In his summing up Justice Bray directed the jury away from the possibility that the victim had taken her own life. He said that if they concluded that Seekings was responsible that they must also consider that killing a person by cutting their throat is an effective method and therefore demonstrates the intention to kill.

  On the subject of drink he added that a man might do things while drunk that he would not do when sober, but that made no difference to the outcome of the case. Only if they decided that Seekings was so drunk that he was too muddled to understand that attacking the woman with
a knife was likely to cause death could they return the verdict of manslaughter.

  After retiring for fifteen minutes the jury returned a verdict of guilty. Asked whether he had anything to say Seekings replied that he did not know whether he was guilty or not.

  Bray placed the black cap on his head and intoned: ‘The jury have found you guilty of murder. I have no choice as to the sentence I pronounce. I desire to say as little as possible on the subject. This is one of the many crimes caused by drink and the sentence of the court upon you is that you be taken from hence to the place from whence you came, and from thence to a lawful place of execution, and there be hanged by the neck until you be dead, and that your body be buried within the precincts of the prison in which you be confined last. And may the Lord have mercy on your soul.’

  On Monday 3 November 1913 Seekings was visited by his father and brother. On the following morning he was executed. Aside from his last visitors Seekings’ execution attracted little interest from either his acquaintances or the public. Thomas Pierrepoint carried out the execution in the execution shed. Although a few curious people hovered around the prison gates, no bell tolled and the black flag was not hoisted. The only outward signs of the execution were the official notices posted on the gates later in the day which informed the public that the execution had gone ahead in the presence of the county under-sheriff, prison governor and the prison chaplain and that the prison surgeon, Edward Izard, had subsequently pronounced Seekings dead.

  Both the rector of Brampton, the Revd Knowles, and the Earl of Sandwich had unsuccessfully written to the Home Secretary requesting that Seekings be spared the death penalty. But aside from their efforts it seems that the murder of Martha Beeby and the subsequent execution of Frederick Seekings evoked little sympathy at the time. He stands out more for his place in history as Cambridgeshire’s last execution than for any criminal notoriety.