Foul Deeds and Suspicious Deaths in Reading

by John J Eddleston

  At 5.20pm, Dr Lancelot George Jacobs arrived. He determined that Jean’s throat had been cut very deeply and her windpipe severed. He then administered medical aid to Queenie, before she was taken to the Guardian’s Institution at Easthampstead. The body of the child was taken to the mortuary at the same establishment and the following day, 31 August, Dr Jacobs carried out a post-mortem.

  That examination showed that there were a number of brown stains on the child’s hands and lips. There were similar stains on the side of Jean’s head and also on her legs. The doctor concluded that these had probably been caused by someone trying to force some kind of liquid into the child’s mouth, and the consequent movements as Jean struggled against it. Finally, Dr Jacobs was able to put the time of death at some twenty to thirty minutes before his initial examination, or close to ten minutes to five.

  The inquest on Jean Pennington opened on Monday 2 September, before Mr R S Payne, the coroner for East Berkshire. Evidence of identification was given by Constable Thatcher and details of the cause of death were outlined by Dr Jacobs. The proceedings were then adjourned until 7 October, by which time it was hoped that Queenie might have recovered sufficiently from her injuries.

  In fact, Queenie Pennington made a reasonably rapid recovery and, by 10 September, was well enough to attend a magistrates’ hearing. Queenie, wearing a blue suit, and with her throat heavily bandaged, sat motionless in the dock throughout.

  Ellen May Haines lived in the front two rooms at the house where the Penningtons resided and she told the court that she had seen the baby alive and well at approximately 3.00pm on the fateful day. Mrs Haines also testified that in her opinion, Queenie had seemed to be devoted to her daughter.

  Margaret Smedley was a district nurse and she had been called to the scene to attend to Queenie. By the time she arrived, Queenie had been assisted into a chair. After she had dressed Queenie’s throat wound, Margaret had noticed an envelope on the kitchen table. This, it transpired, was a note which read: ‘I can’t stand living any longer. Please take this as the truth from me. I am only blaming myself.’ The note was signed: ‘Mrs Pennington’.

  The brown stains found on Jean had also been noted on Queenie’s lips. This was almost certainly Potassium Permanganate. When he had searched the premises, Constable Thatcher had found a half-used packet of that chemical on the kitchen shelf. It was possible that Queenie had tried to poison her daughter and herself, before turning to the razor.

  Superintendent Goddard had questioned Queenie, once she had recovered sufficiently from her injuries. She had explained to him that she had intended to kill herself, not Jean, and could not remember why she had cut her daughter’s throat. She went on to say: ‘I have always suffered with my head. I really didn’t mean to kill Jean; it was myself I wished to kill. I could not put up with the pain any more.’

  Queenie Pennington was duly committed for trial on the charge of murder. In the event, Queenie stood in the dock at Reading on 14 October, before Mr Justice Acton. Mr HH Maddocks led the case for the Crown whilst Queenie was defended by Mr St John G Micklethwait. She pleaded not guilty to the charge.

  The events inside 2 Fairview Cottages were then reconstructed. Prior to the crime, Queenie had seemed to live happily with her husband and daughter, to whom she was, undoubtedly, devoted. However, at some time between 4.45pm and 5.15pm on 30 August, she had first tried to get Jean to drink Potassium Permanganate, and when this failed, she had then cut Jean’s throat with her husband’s razor and then turned the weapon upon herself. When these efforts did not succeed in ending her life, she had then taken a hammer and struck herself repeatedly over the head. There was no motive for the crime and the defence were therefore claiming that, at the time she committed this crime, Queenie had been insane.

  Dr Jacobs, in addition to repeating his medical testimony, was also able to say that whilst he and William Pennington had been alone with Queenie, she had said: ‘The child was too good to live.’

  Ellen Haines testified that Queenie had been very much ‘up and down’ before 30 August. She was easily excited and sometimes seemed to suffer from bouts of melancholia.

  Constable Thatcher, in addition to his evidence already detailed, pointed out to the court that no attempt had been made to conceal Jean’s body, as might have been expected in a case of wilful murder.

  The final witness was Dr John Hall Morton, the senior medical officer at Holloway prison, where Queenie had been held. He had observed her since her reception there on 14 September and reported that she appeared depressed and dull. She had difficulty in holding a normal conversation and, in his opinion, was suffering from some mental abnormaility.

  On 26 September, Queenie had complained to Dr Morton of severe pains in her head. Later still she had a violent outburst and tried to ram her head against the wall. In Dr Morton’s opinion, Queenie knew what she had done to her daughter but had no concept of it being wrong. His opinion was that she was certainly insane at the time of the attack.

  Having heard all the evidence, the jury reached their verdict without even leaving the courtroom. Queenie was guilty, but insane. She was then sentenced to be detained as a criminal lunatic until His Majesty’s pleasure be known.

  Queenie Pennington was granted one last request. Before she was taken away, the judge allowed her to see her husband, William, the man who had come home from work and found his family destroyed.

  CHAPTER 8

  Behind Closed Doors Ernest Hutchinson 1932

  There was something very curious going on in the house at 8 Heywood Avenue, White Waltham, near Maidenhead. Joseph Thomas Hutton, a retired policeman who lived next door at number 9, had been watching the various comings and goings with great interest.

  The house at number 8 was occupied by four people. As far as Mr Hutton knew, these were Gwendoline Annie Warren, her husband Ernest and their two children: twelve-year-old Ronald Jeffrey and the baby, Connie. In fact, things were more complex than that, for Mr and Mrs Warren were not man and wife and Ernest Warren’s real name was actually Ernest Hutchinson.

  Mr Hutton had last seen Mrs Warren at around 9.15pm on Saturday 10 September 1932. The following day, Sunday 11, at 11.00am, Hutton saw Ernest Hutchinson and remarked that he hadn’t seen Gwendoline up and about as yet. Hutchinson told him that she was still in bed, to which Joseph Hutton said that she must be making a day of it then. Hutchinson agreed and the matter was left there.

  Joseph Hutton saw Hutchinson again the following morning, at 9.00am. Once again he asked after Mrs Warren and was told that she had gone to Birmingham and would be there until the following Tuesday. He said he was finding it rather difficult to look after two children, so added that he intended taking them to Burnham, in Buckinghamshire, to stay with relatives there.

  At this stage, nothing had really happened to arouse Joseph Hutton’s suspicions but then, at 6.00pm on that same Tuesday evening, 13 September, a gentleman called to see Hutchinson at number 8. The very next morning, Wednesday 14 September, a carrier’s van with the word ‘Bunce’ painted on the side, appeared outside number 8 and Mr Hutton saw a piano, a table and a settee loaded onto it. Shortly after this, at 12.15pm, Hutchinson bumped into Mr Hutton and announced that he too was now going to Birmingham, to be with his wife, but would travel via Oxford. He then closed the door behind him, made sure it was locked, and walked off down the street, taking the two children with him. It was now close to 12.30pm on 14 September 1932.

  For a few hours at least, Mr Hutton saw nothing more to arouse his curiosity. Then, at around 6.00pm, he saw twelve-year-old Ronald Warren return to the house with a woman Mr Hutton did not recognise. The two visitors were unable to gain access to number 8 despite their constant knocking, and Mr Hutton went to see if he could help in any way.

  The woman with Ronald was his aunt, Mrs Mable Ellen Clara Fleet who lived at School House, East Burnham, Buckinghamshire. After Joseph Hutton had introduced himself, he assisted Ronald through the larder window at the rear of the hou
se. Ronald then opened the front door but as soon as Mrs Fleet stepped inside, Mr Hutton called her back out and told her to take care of the boy. His police training told him that there might well be something untoward inside the house and he felt that he should make a search of the premises himself.

  The house was tidy enough but when Mr Hutton went into the front bedroom, it became clear that all was not well. A large pile of bedding, weights and other items were tied into a bundle and placed on top of the bed. Beneath this, lay the body of a woman. Mr Hutton wasted no time in calling for the police.

  The pile of bedding and weights that was deposited on top of Gwendoline Warren’s body. The National Archives

  The body of Gwendoline Warren, in situ. The National Archives

  Ernest Hutchinson. This newspaper picture was published after the trial was concluded. The National Archives

  A description of Ernest Hutchinson was circulated and reports of the crime appeared in many local and national newspapers. On Thursday 15 September, those reports were seen by Mrs Jasper, the landlady of a boarding house at 11 Broadway Market, Southend-on-Sea, who believed that the description matched a guest who had signed in the previous night. That guest had a woman with him and they had signed the register as Mr and Mrs Hutchinson, giving an address at Haywood Avenue, Buckinghamshire. The similarity of the addresses and the mention of Buckinghamshire were too much for coincidence and Mrs Jasper telephoned the police. At 5.30pm that evening, Detective Inspector WA Harris visited the hotel and took Ernest Hutchinson into custody.

  Told that he was being held on a charge of murder, Hutchinson claimed that he had nothing to do with the crime. According to his statement, he and Gwendoline had argued on the night of Saturday 10 September and, as a result, she had gone to sleep alone in the front bedroom. The following morning he went to check on her and found that she was dead. The front door had been left unlocked and it was plain that someone had entered the house and killed Gwendoline. In fact, Hutchinson was even able to supply the police with the name of a suspect: Gwendoline’s estranged husband, Thomas, who had been writing her threatening letters.

  Hutchinson admitted that he had not reported this to the authorities and had stayed in the house with the body for a few days but that did not make him guilty of murder. The police believed none of this story and Hutchinson was then formally charged.

  Forty-three-year-old Ernest Hutchinson appeared at Reading before Mr Justice MacKinnon on 14 October 1932. During the two-day trial, the case for the Crown was led by Mr WG Earengey whilst Hutchinson was defended by Mr St John G Micklethwait.

  One of the early witnesses was Thomas William Warren who testified that he had married Gwendoline Annie Fleet, in Reigate, on 8 March 1924. They had lived happily enough for a time but then, on 5 July 1930, Hutchinson had come to live with them as a lodger. That same night, Gwendoline had run away with Hutchinson, taking Ronald with them. It was true that they had returned the next day, but things were never the same after that, even when Hutchinson went away for the best part of two years. Eventually, Hutchinson returned and soon afterwards, Gwendoline fell pregnant. This was not Thomas’ child. Then, some three months before she had died, Gwendoline had left again, with Hutchinson, taking the children with them. Thomas denied that he had sent any threatening letters to his wife and, in fact, had only communicated with her once or twice since that final separation, to discuss the possibility of a divorce.

  Continuing his evidence, Thomas Warren gave details of a letter he had received from Gwendoline, which seemed to throw some light on a possible motive for the crime. Dated 10 September, the most probable date of Gwendoline’s death, it began:

  Dear Tom, I have found out my mistake now – wish I had never come down. He has been making out to me, for the last five weeks, that he has been working at the Maidenhead Gas Company and I have partly believed it.

  I wrote to the manager yesterday to make sure, and had a reply this morning to say they had nobody in their employ in that name. I have not had a penny from him ever since we have been here, only what he has got somehow, I think from my account at the Post Office.

  Ever since last Tuesday he has been saying that he had got £17, which was a month’s wages, in his purse and I should have it. He has also entered four weeks rent as paid in the rent book, but I got to know this morning that it has not been paid at all.

  Oh Tom, can you forgive me once more and I will not do it again. I will be true to you now and for all time.

  I know I should not expect it, nor I know I don’t deserve it but will you please stop divorce proceedings and come back to me? I was not happy with you, I know, but we shall have to get along somehow. It does not matter about the neighbours. The people next door one side have been very good. When I got that letter this morning they made me go in and have a cup of tea.

  Could you please help me out for the rent next Monday as I have two weeks to pay?

  The letter was signed ‘Gwen’ but Thomas Warren never had a chance to reply to his estranged wife. The very next day a postcard arrived. Dated 11 September and in Hutchinson’s hand, it read:

  Sorry to trouble you, but Gwen asked me to write and tell you that she withdraws the letter posted Saturday and she has gone to Birmingham until Wednesday next and I am looking after baby and Ron until then, as she has decided to go to Birmingham to live with me again so she is trying to get three rooms while she is there.

  The inference was clear. Gwendoline had discovered that Hutchinson had been lying, had no job and no income and had been drawing money from her Post Office account. They had argued and he had killed her and tried to cover his tracks.

  Twelve-year-old Ronald Jeffrey Warren told the court of the various trips he had made over those crucial dates. On Saturday 10 September, he had been sent to his aunt’s house in East Burnham. The next day he returned to White Waltham at 9.05pm and at first there was no answer to his knocking. Finally, Hutchinson opened the door and when Ronald asked after his mother, Hutchinson replied: ‘Your mother is not in. Here is a note that she wrote.’

  Hutchinson handed Ronald a scrap of paper on which was written:

  Dear Ronnie,

  I have gone to Birmingham so be a good boy, but daddy will look after Connie and you.

  Signed Mummy, with love and kisses.

  Ronald thought nothing more about it, had his supper and went straight to bed. A couple of days later, on Tuesday 13 September, after he had had breakfast, Hutchinson announced that Ronald and Connie were going to his aunt’s house in East Burnham. Later that day, all three of them got onto a bus, which took them to Maidenhead. From there, they caught another bus to Slough and then Hutchinson put the two children on a third bus to Farnham Common, asking the conductor if he would put them off there. Once he arrived, Ronald walked the rest of the way to his aunt’s house.

  The next day, Wednesday, Mrs Fleet, his aunt, suggested that Ronald should go back to the house in White Waltham and bring the note Hutchinson had shown him. A somewhat weary Ronald did as he was asked but when he got back to Heywood Avenue, Hutchinson was just coming out of the gate and announced that he was going to Birmingham. They got on the bus together and went to the railway station at Maidenhead, where Ronald heard Hutchinson buy a ticket to Paddington before putting him back on the bus. Ronald was despatched back to his aunt’s house and it was then that she decided to return with him.

  After Joseph Hutton had given his testimony, his wife, Beatrice Emily Madeline Hutton took the stand and her evidence reinforced what Gwendoline had written in the letter to her husband.

  Beatrice detailed a conversation she had had with Gwendoline on the day she was last seen alive. Gwendoline was very upset and explained that all the money had been drawn out of her account at the post office. Further, Hutchinson had lied to her. He had told her that he had a good job but this was simply not true. He had been keeping the household going by drawing the money from her account. So upset was Gwendoline at the time, that Mrs Hutton took her into her
own house and made her a cup of tea.

  Albert Davies, a dealer, of 38 Bridge Street, Maidenhead, confirmed that Hutchinson had come into his shop and asked him to purchase a piano. A price was agreed and the next morning, Albert made arrangements with William Bunce of 29 Harrow Lane, Maidenhead, to take his van and collect it. Once at Hutchinson’s house, Mr Davies also purchased a settee and a table, paying well below the market value for all three items. Hutchinson, it seems, was only interested in raising some cash and did not care what price he received.

  One of the final witnesses was Doris Dew, a prostitute of 1 Oakenham Street, Kennington Road, London. She told the court that she had met Hutchinson in the York Hotel on Waterloo Road, and after falling into conversation with him, he had suggested that they should go to Southend together. She had agreed and was with him in the hotel when he was arrested.

  The jury retired to consider their verdict and, after deliberating for one hour and ten minutes, returned to announce that Hutchinson was guilty as charged. He was then sentenced to death by the trial judge. Hutchinson seemed unperturbed. He smiled as the foreman gave the guilty verdict, when the judge donned the black cap, and as the warders took him down to the cells.

  A letter, written by Hutchinson after his conviction, protesting his innocence. The National Archives

  Only now could some of Hutchinson’s past be detailed. He had been born at Christchurch in 1891 and had first come to the attention of the police in 1910 when he was sentenced to five months in prison for stealing a postal packet whilst employed by the Royal Mail.

  Since that date he had received no fewer than sixteen prison sentences, only finally being discharged on 7 June 1932, from a two year sentence for false pretences. He had appeared before Canterbury magistrates on 6 October 1930. In fact, he had spent very little time outside of jail between 1910 and 1932.