by Alison Bruce
They were not the first on the scene, however. For some reason Mrs Wright had been concerned about her sister. Two of the pub’s customers, Ernest Harding and Mr Rignall, went to The Meads with Stearn’s son soon joining them. Ernest found 6-year-old Bobby with Sybil’s body. He took the little boy from the room and handed him over to Stearn’s son to look after.
The police found Sybil Worthington’s body where she had fallen. She was wearing her coat, which was not done up, and lying in a pool of blood. She had been shot through the left breast. There was a hole in the left breast of her coat, which showed scorch marks. This made it obvious that the shot had been fired from close range. There was also a similar but clean-cut hole in her jacket.
The post mortem, carried out by Dr Grove on 15 March, confirmed that the heart and left lung were lacerated and that the shot had entered about 1½in left of the nipple and had penetrated as far as the back of the spine. In his opinion Sybil had died instantly. The victim had been 5ft 2in tall and the gun had been fired at a slight downwards angle from within a foot of her.
The gun was found in the recess where it had been stashed. The right barrel contained a discharged cartridge, while the left barrel was fully cocked and contained a live cartridge. Hodson unlocked the bureau and found a bottle of fluid and several papers, including a letter written by Worthington.
An extract from the letter read: ‘I beg your pardon for all this trouble but please sift this thing out. Please arrange for the fluid in the bottle to be analysed. He is the cause of this tragedy.’
It was clear from the full letter that the ‘he’ in question was Lionel Wright. The letter concluded: ‘Once more I apologise. W. Worthington. P.S. I cannot endure this any longer, as I have been abused by Lionel Wright. I have not been hasty. My wife left me on 24 January for the reason of spending the night at The Crown Inn. She has almost collapsed when I have accused her, and hung her head, and had nothing to say.’
Another letter addressed to Worthington was from a London firm. It referred to a diaphragm or Dutch Cap, which was mentioned in the subsequent news paper coverage as just ‘an instrument’. It was a popular form of contraception in the 1930s. In his letter Worthington explained that the pessary had been missing and he was sure that she had been using it with someone else. Hodson took the bottle to the public analyst at Cambridge but his findings are not known.
The inquest was held at the rectory at Broughton on the afternoon of Monday 11 March. A week later the funeral took place at Streatham cemetery. The same vicar who had married them conducted the ceremony and many of Mrs Worthington’s friends and relatives attended, including former colleagues from Norman Hartnell’s.
In an all-day hearing before magistrates at the St Ives Police Court on Tuesday 26 March, Worthington pleaded not guilty: ‘I did not intend to hurt her. It was an accident.’ He was then committed for trial at the next Huntingdonshire Assizes.
Worthington’s trial at Huntingdon Assizes began in mid-May. The prosecution pointed out that the first time Worthington had claimed the shooting to be an accident was on 26 March, seventeen days after his wife’s death. But counsel was careful to tell the jury that, even had it been an accident and he had brandished the gun to threaten his wife when it went off, it would still amount to manslaughter because he would have been committing an unlawful act when he pointed it at her.
A gunsmith, William Adkin from Bedford, was called as an expert witness. He said that the gun was of Belgian manufacture and explained that it was slightly faulty and would require more pressure on the trigger than usual to make it fire. The average pull required to discharge a gun of this type was between 4 and 4½lb but Worthington’s required 6lb. This made it highly unlikely that the gun could go off accidentally; the trigger would need to be physically pulled quite hard.
Two key witnesses were Worthington’s own sons; David aged 16 and Ronald aged 13. They explained what had happened on the evening of their stepmother’s death. Ronald in particular struggled to give evidence.
The rector, Revd Stearn, was also called to give evidence. This was not just based on the events of 9 March but because he appeared to know Worthington better than anyone else. Stearn described Worthington as a man who was ‘very, very’ devoted to his wife and extremely fond of his children. When Worthington’s first wife had died Stearn had known him well enough to accompany him into town to do some shopping. He found Worthington to be a very sensitive man. At one point the accused had told him that he had left the door open all night hoping that Sybil would return. This was thought to have been in January, when she went to stay at the Crown for a week.
Walter Worthington. (Author’s Collection)
As Stearn gave this evidence Worthington appeared to become very distressed.
When it was his turn to take the stand Worthington was very precise about his wife’s movements during her last week. The detail to which he had noted the time of her trips from the house appeared to border on the obsessive. He recalled that on Monday 4 March she had gone to the Crown at 3 p.m. and returned at 6.20 p.m. On the Tuesday she had gone to a concert at 7 p.m. and he had picked her up at 10.45 p.m. while on the Thursday she had again gone to the Crown at 3 p.m. but this time had not returned until five past ten. When Saturday arrived and she told him that she was planning to go out again he objected, saying that she had already been out during the week. But she had made up her mind to go and walked away.
He then claimed that it was in these next minutes that he wrote his note to the police and said that his intention was to kill himself if his wife would not listen to reason. It was only moments later, when Sybil and Walter were next face to face, that the fatal shot was fired.
‘I was staggered. I did not think it would go off,’ he told the court.
Under cross-examination Worthington went into more detail about his planned suicide. Mr Oliver for the prosecution asked he were jealous of his wife. ‘I did not like my wife going to the Crown,’ Worthington replied. Oliver proceeded to ask Worthington a string of questions.
‘Were you jealous of Lionel Wright?’
‘Yes, I had reason to be.’
‘Do you remember telling Mr Parker that shortly after your marriage Lionel had insulted your wife?’
‘I never said such a thing.’
‘Is his evidence untrue?’
‘Yes.’
‘Did you hear evidence of the conversation with you?’
‘Yes.’
‘Is that true?’
‘No.’
‘Did Lionel Wright say to you “I believe my father sooner than you”?’
‘He never mentioned it.’
‘Did you pick up the gun then?’
‘Yes.’
‘Why?’
‘Because he threatened me. He used verbal threats.’
‘What did he say?’
‘He said he would take it out of me.’
‘And you picked up the gun for self protection?’
‘The gun was not loaded. I would have struck him with it if he had hit me.’
‘On 9 March you had not been shooting that day?’
‘No.’
‘Had you had these cartridges a long time?’
‘Since September.’
‘Do you shoot birds?’
‘I never shot the gun. It was a birthday present. The cartridges were sent with the gun.’
‘And this evening your wife wanted to go out and you did not want her to?’
‘No.’
‘Are you asking the jury to believe you loaded the gun to shoot yourself?’
‘I do.’
‘Did you consider how you were going to shoot yourself?’
‘No.’
‘It is a difficult thing to shoot yourself with is it not?’
‘I don’t know.’
‘Have you ever made that suggestion in any public place before today?’
‘No.’
‘You have never made that suggestion before?’
‘I was not
asked to make a statement.’
‘Do you say the letters were written while your wife was upstairs?’
‘Yes.’
‘You did make up your mind there was going to be a tragedy?’
‘I intended to shoot myself.’
‘Did you intend to shoot her and yourself?’
‘No.’
‘There were two cartridges.’
‘I know.’
‘One of the boys said when you brought the gun into the lounge you broke it open and looked into it. Was that when you loaded it?’
‘No.’
‘When your wife came downstairs you said you reasoned with her again?’
‘Yes, I said: “Are you really going out?”’
‘Where did she go?’
‘She was in the kitchen.’
‘You put the cartridges in the gun as she passed you?’
‘Yes.’
‘Why did you want to shoot yourself in front of her?’
‘I was so miserable and wretched.’
‘But why in front of her?’
‘I thought it would prevent her from going out.’
‘Why did you load the gun when she came into the room?’
‘To shoot myself, I thought my note explains that.’
‘Are you sure you did not intend to shoot your wife?’
‘Not at all.’
‘Is there anything in your letter which points to your death rather than your wife’s?’
‘Yes, there is.’
‘It was quite an accident?’
‘Yes.’
‘You did not intend to hurt her at all?’
‘No.’
These questions and Worthington’s answers became the lynchpin of the court case. His defence argued that the note had been written for the police because he did not intend to be alive to tell them the details himself. In his closing statement Mr Flowers, for the defence, asked the jury to find that the victim had been shot accidentally while Worthington was attempting suicide and that they should therefore return a verdict of manslaughter. He reminded the jury that Revd Stearns had described Worthington as being devoted to his wife and how the court had heard that ‘Worthington hated pain and suffering. He could not bear to see chickens killed’. Flowers said that the onus was upon the prosecution to prove that Worthington intended to kill Sybil.
The prosecution argued that if the shooting had been an accident then Worthington would have mentioned it sooner. And the same applied to his claim that he had intended suicide. Oliver, the defence counsel, felt that the letter was intended to embroil Sybil’s murder in scandal and thereby drag Lionel Wright into the case with the words ‘he is the cause of this tragedy’. He asked the jury to consider the statements made by Worthington’s sons and ask themselves whether there had been any indication then that their father’s intention had been suicide.
When Justice Hawke summed up he agreed with Flowers that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that Worthington killed her ‘by a determined deliberate act’. His final words to the jury were: ‘Fix in your minds this, have the prosecution proved him guilty or not?’
The jury retired for fifty-five minutes and on their return the foreman announced a guilty verdict.
The crowd outside the trial of Walter Worthington. (Author’s Collection)
The judge passed the death sentence. It was Monday 20 May 1935 and the first time that this judgment had been issued since the case of Walter Horsford, the St Neots Poisoner, in 1898.
Worthington was removed to Bedford gaol. On 24 June Lord Hewart and Justices Swift and Lawrence dismissed an appeal at the Court of Criminal Appeal in London. Worthington’s execution was set for 10 June at Bedford gaol. Thomas Pierrepoint hanged him at 8 a.m. on the appointed day.
The case of Walter Worthington holds no great mysteries but it seems likely that the prosecutor, Mr Oliver, hit on the truth when he asked: ‘Did you intend to shoot her and yourself?’ It is hard to imagine how the gun could have fired accidentally, especially when it hit Sybil with such deadly accuracy. It is equally easy to see that Worthington’s state of mind was disturbed by obsessive jealousy to the extent where his plan could have included suicide.
16
OTHER NOTABLE CAMBRIDGESHIRE CRIMES
There are three other cases that are too interesting to leave out, but, in the case of this chapter, they are too sparsely documented to cover with more than a short recital. The first of these is nothing more than the contents of a handbill, which appears to be the only surviving evidence of a horrendous seventeenth- century crime. The details are vivid enough therein to offer a tantalising glimpse of the shocking events but sufficiently vague to leave the full story and final outcome as mysteries. It is worth noting that the £60 reward offered seems paltry compared to the £2,000 stolen.
The wording of the untitled handbill:
Of most notorious and barbarous, bloody and inhuman murder; committed on Sunday morning last, on the bodies of Sr Thomas Flimer Kt And Bar; his lady, one child, and five servants, near Wickham in Cambridgeshire. By 3 men and 2 woman: Particularly how they Brook into the house and kill’d the servants, and cut Sr Thomas Flimer’s throat, whilest the 2 woman drove a spike through the lady’s temples, and fasened her to the ground, also how they robb’d the house of the value of £2000 in moneys, besides, jewels, plate, watches, rings, and other things of great value.
Note. There is a reward of sixty pounds for any person or persons, that shall apprehend or take any of these notorious murders.
On Saturday last, Sr Thomas Flymer Kt And Bar; had invited several of their relations and friends to dine with him and his lady being it was the feasting day. And after dinner they were all very merry till about 11 or 12 o’clock at night, their relations and friends having their coaches waiting for them they broke up, and went to their dwelling houses; so about two or 3 hours after, these three notorious villains broke into the house, by having a 2 storey ladder and breaking a pane of glass in the window, one put his hand in and unhasped the casement, which the door of the room being closed and the key in it they impudently unlockt it and went directly down stairs, having a dirk lantern to light them, and let the two women in. Which they impudently enter’d, and without asking any questions went upstairs, one of ‘em said, the servants was dead asleep, and I’ll shew you where Sr Thomas and his lady lies, for she had been a servant in the house; so they broke open the door, which Sr Thomas hearing a noise, and seeing a light he asked who was there; with that one made answer and said we will tell you presently, and no sooner was the word out of their mouth, but he was knock down, which his lady seeing fell a screaking and crying out murder, with that one of the women stopped the lady’s mouth, whilest the men cut Sr Thomas’s throat. And the women they drove a spick through the lady’s temples which fasted her head to the floor. Which with knocking they wakened the nurse that lay in the next room, and she hearing a noise cried out who is that, that makes such a noise to disturb my lady.
And they hearing somebody speak they were so surprised that they stood still all but she that was the maid; for she know’d her tongue so she went and broke open the door and went in, which the rest seeing followed her, then they bound and gag’d the nurse and she having a child lying by her it cried; with that she that was the maid said I’ll send you out of this world presently, so took it by the heels and beat its brains out against the floor. So she knowing where the rest of the servants lay they went and murdered them; then they went and rifled the house of gold and silver to the value of £2000 besides jewels, plate, rings and other things of great value. The plate all having Sr Thomas’s Coat of Arms and his name engraved at large, there was in gold a cup marked with the same and several rings, the posse (sic) of the lady’s wedding ring (was Christ alone made us two in one). And in plate, 4 dishes, a dozen of plates, six poringers, 4 candlesticks, a dozen of spoons, a dozen of forks and a dozen of silver-hasted knives; all marked with aforesaid mark. And after they had done what mischief th
ey could they packed up all and went clear with their booty between five and six, leaving the nurse bound and gag’d, not murdered, by which means it’s hoped they will be found out, in order to be brought to trial and receive that justice which becomes due for such a horrid and barbarous a fact as that was. And in the morning about nine o’clock, a poor man goes to dress the horses for the coach-man, as he always did every Sunday morning, for he got a dinner for his family every Sunday; so he goes as formerly he did and rings at the gate, but nobody came to let him in, with that he goes home and tells his wife, that nobody would let him in, perhaps their being late up last night, Cries she they are not stirring, know no cries he they near lay a bed till this time a day; and he goes again and rings nobody came, and just as he was a going away he espied the marks of a bloody hand upon the post, so he goes back to the town and takes a constable and other assistance and broke open the gate, where they found Sr Thomas, his lady and their child murdered, the nurse bound and gag’d and the rest of the servants murdered as aforesaid. The house robbed, so they unbound and ungagged the nurse and she declared as aforesaid. But by this we see the temptations of Satan as great, which shall force a man for the lucre of a little worldly pels (sic), suffer disgrace here, and hazard the loss of his soul without repentance, and that to all eternity.
A reward of sixty pounds is offered by Sr Thomas’s brother Sr Edward Flimer, living at Stratford a mile beyond Bow, to any person or persons that shall take, or cause to be taken, any of these notorious murderers. Likewise all goldsmiths, pawnbrokers, or others are desired if any of the aforesaid jewels, plate, or rings, should be offered to sale or pawn, that they would be so kind as to stop the goods and the party that offers them to sale, and their cost and charges shall be paid, besides the sixty pounds be Edward Flimer, that they may be brought to justice.
Licensed according to Order.
Not a Ghost of a Chance
Without a great deal of original documentation to work from, it seems most appropriate to present a succinct account of the Gervais Matcham story. Matcham’s Gibbet was located on the road out of Alconbury opposite the entrance of what is now the company, Huntingdon Life Sciences. It can be found on some old maps at the Woolley turning of the Great North Road just north of Brampton Hut and was named after Gervais Matcham whose body was left to hang there to rot after his execution in 1786.