The Mammoth Book of Unsolved Crimes

by Wilkes, Roger

Michael Nangle gave his version of the facts, which, with one exception, tallied with that given by Patrick. He had never before heard of ladies bathing at the Long Hole; the rocks were sharp and dangerous. He looked for the clothes along the strand; Patrick searched the rock. Mr Kirwan came down “bringing down something white in his hand like a sheet, and also a shawl”. Witness did not see the body closely till the next day; he only saw the face, on which were cuts or scratches. Mr Kirwan did not get wet while in their company. The water in the Long Hole was as smooth as in a well. During their search Mr Kirwan seemed “uneasy”—which, in any view, is not surprising.

  Michael differed from Patrick only in that he thought the sheet was brought down from the rock by Mr Kirwan, whereas Patrick was positive that the sheet was beneath the body when discovered, that it was wet, and that he tied it twice about the body before Michael and Mr Kirwan came up. It was dark at the time; Patrick, who examined and handled the body, is more likely to be right than Michael, who did neither. The significance of the wetness of the sheet, as sworn to by Patrick, appears to have been overlooked: however dark it was, that is a matter on which he could not well be mistaken, and had Mrs Kirwan left the sheet with her clothes upon the rock, it would like them have been dry, for they were found above high-water mark. What, then, was the “something white” selected by Mr Kirwan from his wife’s clothes? Most probably, her chemise; for though we have an inventory of all the garments removed from the rock, there is no word of a chemise, which, as we shall find, was missing, while that she wore one will hardly be disputed.

  Thomas Giles, one of the boatmen, corroborated the Nangles to the extent of his knowledge, and Arthur Brew, of the picnic party, told what he had seen of the Kirwans when on the island. Then followed the five witnesses who heard the cries. Mr Butt worked hard to bring out minor discrepancies in their statements, such as, for instance, the number of minutes that elapsed between the several screams, and so forth; but upon the cardinal points that each did hear about seven o’clock three distinct screams, decreasing in volume, coming from Ireland’s Eye, their testimony was unscathed.

  The next group of witnesses was the women who had washed and laid out the corpse, and who now deposed to the condition in which they found it as before described. They stuck gallantly to their guns, and Mr Butt failed to impair the value of their evidence. Mrs Lacy, the dame of forty years’ practical experience, maintained in cross-examination: “There was nothing like the bite of a crab on the body.” The hearing was then adjourned.

  Next day, 9 December, began with the evidence of Joseph Sherwood, Sergeant of Constabulary, stationed at Howth. He had seen the face of the body on the night of Mrs Kirwan’s death; it was scratched, there was a cut on the right temple, the mouth was swollen, and the eyes were bloodshot. He noticed that Mr Kirwan’s clothes were wet from the knees downward. Upon arrest of that gentleman at his house in Upper Merrion Street, on 7 October, witness there saw the woman Kenny and her children. He was present when the bathing cap was found at high-water mark in the Long Hole on 11 September; the string was tied in a hard knot. Shouts at Ireland’s Eye were audible at Howth; he himself had heard such on the mainland. Cross-examined by Mr Butt, the bundle of Mrs Kirwan’s clothes did not include a chemise. The clothes were clean and free from bloodstains.

  Ann Molloy, the Kirwans’ servant, said she had been with them for twelve months. They had no family. Miss Theresa Kenny was then called, but failed to appear. It would have been interesting to have heard her evidence. William Bridgeford stated that he was the owner of the house in Sandymount occupied by Mr Kirwan who became his tenant in 1848. Witness saw there occasionally a woman whom he understood to be Mr Kirwan’s wife. There were children in the house. He had received notes, presumably on business, from the woman, signed “Teresa”. Catherine Byrne, Mr Kirwan’s servant at his “home from home”, said that a woman lived with him there who was known as “Mrs Kirwan”. They had seven children. A strange lady called once to make some inquiries.

  Thomas Alexander Hamilton, the medical student who had seen the body, was next examined. It was, he said, then prepared for burial. He made a superficial examination of the head, but found no fracture. There was a scratch on the right temple, and scratches around the eyes, which were closed; he did not open them; the eyelids were livid. The lobe of one of the ears was cut. There was froth, thin, light, and stationary, upon the mouth. The abdomen was full and firm. He did not examine the body very closely, and saw no blood, or anything else that attracted his attention. Cross-examined, he noticed no marks of violence. He had never before examined the body of a drowned person. He knew nothing at the time to excite suspicion.

  Dr George Hatchell, who made the postmortem examination thirty-one days after death, was next called. He was present at the exhumation. The coffin lay in two and a half feet of water, which had entered it, and the body was to a certain extent macerated. The scalp showed no marks of violence. He found abrasions or scratches about the right eye. The eyes were injected with blood. The lobe of the right ear was wanting. There were no other injuries about the ears that he could observe, decomposition being too far advanced. The lips were swollen and very vascular; the tongue was marked above and below by the teeth. On opening the head, the brain was found to be in a semi-fluid state and of a light pinkish colour. The base of the skull was not fractured. There was nothing remarkable about the trachea or the larynx, and the vertebrae of the neck were not dislocated. On the right breast was a superficial cut or scratch. There was extensive lividity on the right side, due probably to gravitation of the blood. The lower orifices of the body were swollen and their interior very vascular, much more than was usual. The lungs were congested by engorgement of blood; the heart was empty on both sides. He had visited and inspected the locus.

  “From the appearances you observe on the body, are you able as a medical man, to form an opinion as to the cause of death and what is that opinion?—I am of opinion that death was caused by asphyxia, or a sudden stopping of respiration. From the congestion in the—, from the engorgement of the lungs, and other circumstances, I should say that in all probability the simple stoppage of respiration must have been combined with pressure of some kind, or constriction, which caused the sudden stoppage. I do not think that simple drowning would produce to the same extent the appearances I saw.”

  Cross-examined by Mr Butt, the extreme congestion which he had found could not be produced by drowning alone. He had never seen such engorgement caused by simple drowning. There must have been a struggle for life, whether by herself or with another. There was no internal injury to the ears nor any sign of a sharp instrument having been thrust into the body. Bathing on a full stomach might bring on a fit; but he had never heard of a person who fell in a fit of epilepsy giving more than one scream.

  Henry Davis, the Coroner, who held the inquest on Mrs Kirwan, stated what took place at that investigation. Cross-examined, he said that in his opinion the scratches on the body were due to the bites of green crabs. In re-examination, he described Mr Kirwan’s behaviour at the inquiry, as already mentioned. The case for the Crown closed with the reading of Mr Kirwan’s deposition before the Coroner, and Mr Butt addressed the jury for the defence. He began by begging them to dismiss from their minds anything they might have heard out of doors to the prejudice of the accused. The evidence upon which the Crown asked them to conclude that his wife had died by his hands was (1) the appearances of the body, (2) the suspicion against him and the cries from the island, and (3) the stain upon his character as a husband. It was impossible for the prisoner to bring any evidence as to what had happened. He was not a competent witness, and he and his wife were alone upon the island when she met her death. That the cries heard were hers was merely a conjecture; even if they were so, that was consistent with her death in a fit. He asked the jury to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses who said they heard the cries on the mainland; Larkin’s was the only evidence on which they could rely, but the guilt of the prisone
r could not be deduced from it. The cries he heard might have been those of Mr Kirwan, calling for his wife before the boat arrived. If this was a murder, how did he do it? Did he strangle her? Did he go into the water and drown her? If her death was the result of violence and Larkin heard her death cries, how was it that eight minutes elapsed during the first and second? What was a strong woman doing in the meantime? It was a natural supposition that she had been attacked by epilepsy on going into the water with a full stomach after her dinner, and that she shrieked first, revived afterwards, and shrieked again. With regard to the prisoner’s unfortunate connection, that could supply no motive for the crime. It was an old affair; his wife knew of it and forgave him, and it would be monstrous to suppose that because he had been unfaithful to her he was capable of imbruing his hands in her blood. As to the appearances presented by the body, no marks of violence were found; there was no internal injury to the ears or other parts, and drowning in a fit would account for the bleedings and congestion. Dr Hatchell in his report mentioned “strangulation”, but the neck and throat were uninjured. Did he mean by “compression” that she was seized and crushed to death? No force was possible without injury to some vital organ. The cuts and scratches, the Coroner told them, were due to the bites of crabs; or they might have been caused by struggling among the rocks: her hair was full of sand and seaweed. A murderer would not begin by scratching her face, and there were no scratches on his face, such as might have been expected. If he had followed her into the sea and drowned her, his arms and coat would have been wet. He might have got his feet wet in the very pool in which her feet lay. “If he loved his wife, as it seemed evident that he did,” he who flung himself upon the body, and remained so long alone with it, could not be the murderer.22 As to the position of the sheet and the finding of the clothes, these rested solely on the evidence of Patrick Nangle, to which no weight should be attached; that of Michael Nangle was upon these points to be preferred. This accusation would never have been brought but for the prisoner’s previous character; if they dismissed from their minds that consideration, they should acquit him, and he would leave the court a wiser and a better man.

  Two witnesses only were called for the defence, Drs Rynd and Adams, who were present in court and had heard the evidence. Dr Rynd said the appearances described pointed to death by asphyxia, or stoppage of the breath and circulation. If caused by external violence there should be manifest marks thereof; there were no such injuries here. All the appearances could be produced by a fit of epilepsy, without any concurring cause. An epileptic might give several screams. Bathing with a full stomach would be apt to cause a fit. Congestion of the brain would account for the bleeding from the ears; general congestion for that from the other organs. Cross-examined by Mr Smyly, witness admitted he never knew of such bleeding in a case of simple drowning. The blood continued fluid in drowned bodies for a considerable time after death. The amount of congestion would depend on the efforts made by the drowning person to save himself. Counsel referred witness to the notorious case of Burke and Hare, where, although no external marks of violence were visible, suffocation was effected; and asked whether a wet sheet held over the mouth would produce the appearances described, without leaving any marks of violence. Dr Rynd admitted that it would do so. He had seen Mrs Kirwan professionally six years before; she appeared to him a fine strong young woman. He had heard, from a person deeply interested in the trial, that her father had died of epilepsy.

  Dr Adams concurred generally in the evidence of Dr Rynd, but admitted that it was unusual for an epileptic to scream more than once—“the first scream is the rule”. Cross-examined, a wet cloth over the mouth and nose would produce all the effects of drowning. If a person was held under water it would cause congestion. It all depended upon the mouth and nose being under water. He had never known a case of accidental drowning where similar bleeding from the organs occurred, nor had he ever heard of a case of epilepsy accompanied by such bleedings. Reexamined, pressure applied to the chest would leave some external marks of violence.

  “Mr Justice Crampton—Supposing death to have taken place by forcible submersion, or from accidental drowning, would you be able, from the appearances described, to state to which species of death they were attributable?—My Lord, in my opinion, no man living could do so.”

  The case for the defence being here closed, Mr Hayes replied on the part of the Crown. He told the jury to disregard the rumours which had been circulated to the prisoner’s prejudice, and defended the prosecution from the animadversions of Mr Butt. Having reviewed the accused’s connection with the woman Kenny, whom he had represented as “Mrs Kirwan”, counsel dealt with the quarrel and the threats against his wife’s life.

  “Is it reasonable to suppose that a man had been living with a concubine for ten years, and during all that time gave her his name, while he was beating his legitimate wife at Howth, could entertain connubial affection for the woman he treated so grossly?”

  He then described the fatal excursion to the island on 6 September. As to the fact of the three screams, sworn to by five witnesses, there could be no possibility of doubt; that they were the shrieks of epilepsy was an ingenious suggestion, unsupported by proof.

  “If there was any evidence that this lady had been previously affected by epilepsy or anything of that kind, there might have been a shadow of ground upon which to found the assertion. As the prisoner has forborne to produce such testimony, it is not too much to infer that there was none to produce; we must take it as proved that the deceased was a perfectly healthy woman.”

  Why did Mr Kirwan say nothing about the screams? He must have heard them; he hadn’t seen his wife for an hour; “and yet this affectionate husband is deaf to these dreadful shrieks”. If he knew she were subject to fits he would have run to her assistance but he is found calmly waiting for the boat, and all he says is “Nangle, come up for the bag!” The first mention of the missing lady comes from the boatman, not from the distracted, agonized husband. Two hours after this lady set out to bathe, the search for her is begun in the dark. At first it is fruitless. They would note that Patrick, calling out near the boat, is heard by Michael at the Long Hole. Was it too much to suppose that if the prisoner had been at that part of the island he would hear screams from the Long Hole? The search was renewed, the body was found, and the question now arose, whether, upon all the facts and circumstances of the case, death was caused by accident or by Mr Kirwan. No direct evidence was possible; and it was from circumstantial evidence alone that the jury could arrive at a conclusion. How came that sheet beneath the body? It should have been left high and dry for her use when she came out. The position of the bathing dress, too, was inexplicable. At seven o’clock, if this lady was then bathing, the tide was going out, and there was 1 ft 9 in. of water over the “body” rock, which was 1 ft high. She was an expert swimmer: was it likely that she should be accidentally drowned there?

  “Let us suppose her in this water, 2 ft 9 in. deep; let us suppose the prisoner coming into the Hole with the sheet in his hand, after taking it from the place in which it was left, ready to put it over her head; let us suppose she saw his dreadful purpose: can you not then conceive and account for the dreadful shrieks that were heard, when the horrid reality burst upon her mind that on that desolate, lonely island, without a living soul but themselves upon it, he was coming into that Long Hole to perpetrate his dreadful offence? Would not the consequence have been the dreadful shrieks that were heard and sworn to? If he succeeded in putting her under the water, notwithstanding her vain efforts to rise, struggling with all her energy against his greater strength, can you not imagine the fearful, agonizing, and fainter shrieks that men and women from the mainland depose to having heard? That is not a mere imagination; it is a rational deduction from the evidence; and it is for you to say whether, upon all the facts of the case, that might not have occurred, or whether the prisoner lost his wife without any fault of his own.”

  As to what happened
when the body was found, Patrick Nangle was a better witness than Michael, who on his own showing saw but little of it. If the deceased left her husband about six o’clock, and if he did not see her thereafter, it was very strange that he should be able at once to know where her clothes lay, in a spot to which he pointed and in which Patrick, who was familiar with the place, had failed to find them. The discrepancy between the Nangles with respect to the sheet is reconciled if what Kirwan brought down from the rock in his hand with the shawl was the chemise. That chemise was not forthcoming: it was for the jury to say whether it was not the “something white” to which Michael referred. With regard to the prisoner’s insistence on the washing of the body, he, a gentleman of position and education, was sworn to have said: “I don’t care a damn for the police; the body must be washed,” although he knew his wife had met her death suddenly on a lonely island, and that every circumstance as to the state of the body was most important to the ends of justice. Moreover, he was actually warned of the coming investigation. The women who washed the body were positive that the scratches were not caused by crabs.

  “You will ask yourselves, gentlemen, whether or not these scratches have any reference to the time when the horrible sheet was being put over the face of the deceased; whether at that awful moment she might not have put up her hands to try and remove the sheet, and in endeavouring to do so, tore herself in the manner described.”

  The bathing cap, found at high-water mark, with the strings tied tight, was also against the supposition of death by epilepsy or accident. Might it not have been torn off in the struggle that took place before the sheet was thrown over her head? Dr Adams, with all his great experience, never knew a case of death from simple drowning or epilepsy in which such bleeding occurred, and yet in the face of that testimony they were asked to say that Mrs Kirwan’s death was accidental! If, apart from the medical evidence, the conduct and demeanour of the prisoner together with the whole facts and circumstances of the case, left no rational doubt of his guilt, it was their duty to find him guilty.