Next, there was the fact that a report had come in that a man, fitting that description, had recently absconded from a mental institution, not far from London. That man was also tall and dark. Then, there was the mysterious confession signed ‘Jack the Ripper’. That had been posted from Ireland to a friend of the wanted man and, when the handwriting on that letter was compared to known samples of the mental patient, a positive match was found. The police now knew that they were looking for twenty-one-year-old Reginald Saunderson.
Saunderson came from a most distinguished family, his father being Colonel Saunderson, the Member of Parliament for North Armagh. Contact with the family led to the wanted man’s location and Saunderson had been found. A warrant for his arrest was drawn up on 4 December, and executed in Armagh, the following day. Plans for his removal to London were immediately put into place.
By now, another important witness had come forward. Herbert Schmalz had been going to post a letter, at some time before 11.30pm on 25 November. As he strolled towards the post box in Holland Park Terrace, he saw a young couple walking some yards in front of him. Suddenly, the man threw one arm around the woman’s shoulders and appeared to strike her in the stomach. Schmalz did not see the knife and thought this had been just a severe blow to the stomach. He shouted out, ‘What are you doing you brute?’ The man turned, and seeing Schmalz running towards him, ran off. Schmalz had given chase but lost the man near Warwick Gardens. When the police then searched in that area, they found a bloodstained knife embedded in some timber in a builder’s yard, some 100 yards from the scene of the attack. Unfortunately for Augusta, Schmalz did not return to the scene of the crime. If he had, then perhaps Augusta’s life may have been saved.
Transferred back to England, Saunderson made a brief appearance at the West London Police Court on 10 December, where it was revealed that he had been in a mental institution at Hampton Wick, for six years. He had walked out of there on the afternoon of 25 November, but his disappearance had not been noticed until 8.30pm. After Augusta had been killed, Saunderson borrowed some money from a teacher at a school he had once attended, and used it to travel to Belfast. From there he had written a letter to a friend, in which he confessed to the murder, signing it Jack the Ripper.
The court returned a verdict that Augusta Dawes had been murdered by Reginald Saunderson and he was committed for trial at the next sessions. The trial actually took place on 28 January 1895, before Mr Justice Wills and it was clear from the outset that the state of Saunderson’s mind would be a major factor in the proceedings.
Before any evidence could possibly be heard, the court had to decide if Saunderson was fit to plead to the charge of murder. Dr George Walker, the surgeon at Holloway prison, where Saunderson had been held on remand, said that he was certainly insane and was unfit to plead to the indictment against him. Dr Walker went on to say that Saunderson’s mental condition had deteriorated even further whilst he had been in custody and he had become so violent at times that he had been placed in a straightjacket inside a padded cell. This evidence was confirmed by Dr Edgar Shepherd, who had also made careful observations of the prisoner inside Holloway.
The prosecution offered no arguments against the medical evidence and, after some discussion, the judge ruled that Saunderson was insane and had been at the time he took Augusta’s life. There was only one sentence possible and Saunderson was then informed that he would be detained until Her Majesty’s pleasure be known.
Chapter 24
Alice Jane Money
1908
Elizabeth Maud Baines lived at 75 Onslow Dwellings, in Pond Place, Chelsea, with her husband and children. Living at the same address was Maud’s lodger, Alice Money, and her husband, Joseph. The Moneys also had two children, four-year-old Daisy and Norah, who was one year and nine months old.
At 11.40am on Tuesday, 28 January 1908, Elizabeth Baines was at her window, singing to her children, when Alice Money passed by. Alice remarked, ‘You are singing. Have you done all your work?’ The two women chatted together for a short time until Alice said that she had a very bad headache. Elizabeth said she had some Seidlitz powders in the house and asked Alice if she would like one. Alice replied, ‘No, I am going to get a powder for my head, and I will take the baby with me.’
Elizabeth did not see Alice again until 4.20pm when she saw her standing at the front door, apparently in some sort of daze. Elizabeth asked her lodger if she was feeling all right and Alice said, ‘My head is still so bad.’ Then, before Elizabeth could continue the conversation, Alice added, ‘I must tell you, my baby is dead.’ Elizabeth thought she must have misheard and asked, ‘Dead?’ To this Alice replied, ‘Yes, I have cut its throat.’
Not sure as to what she should do now, Elizabeth took Alice inside the house and sat her down upon a chair. She then called for her husband, Joseph, told him what Alice had said, and asked him to go for the police. Even as Elizabeth was telling her husband the story, Alice again said that she had cut her baby’s throat, adding that she had also cut her own and taken something from a bottle.
It was around 5.00pm when Constable Richard Jones arrived at the house. He noticed that Alice Money had a scarf tied quite tightly around her neck and, on a hunch, he stepped forward and loosened it. Beneath the scarf, Alice had inflicted a slight wound upon her own throat and there was some blood. Constable Jones told Joseph Baines to go for a doctor.
Meanwhile, Constable Jones went into Alice’s bedroom where he found Norah Money lying on the bed, her face covered with a shawl. On removing the shawl, Jones saw that the child’s throat had been cut through deeply. It was clear that the child was beyond all aid and Jones then returned to Alice and cautioned her. She replied, ‘I did it at about half past twelve.’ Later that same day, Alice was charged with the murder of her infant daughter.
Alice Money appeared at the Old Bailey, before Mr Justice Bucknill, on 3 March 1908. Mr AE Gill and Mr Leycester appeared for the prosecution and Alice was defended by Mr AW Elkin, who entered a plea that his client had been insane at the time she committed the crime.
Dr James Hamilton said that he had been called to Onslow Dwellings, where he had found a superficial throat wound on the prisoner. That wound was almost certainly self-inflicted. He later examined the body of Norah Money and confirmed that life was extinct. She had been dead for some hours and the pillows and bedclothes were saturated with blood.
The divisional police surgeon, Dr James Robert Hayes, had also been called to the scene of the crime. He stated that Alice appeared to be in some sort of daze and did not realise what she had done. Later he did the post-mortem on Norah and confirmed that in life she had been a well-nourished child. Dr Hayes had also been handed a bottle, found inside Alice’s rooms. He confirmed that it had contained oxalic acid but, having examined Alice’s mouth, he doubted that she had actually taken any.
Inspector Alfred Ward had also gone to the house on the day of Norah’s death. He testified that the rooms were exceptionally clean and tidy. Alice had obviously taken good care of the house and, by all accounts, was a good mother and wife.
Only two witnesses were called for the defence. Joseph Money told the court that he and Alice had been married for about five years. They had been happy enough, until the last three months or so, when Alice had started complaining of severe head pains. Ever since she had behaved irrationally and had suffered from mood swings and fits of temper. Often she had not been aware of what she had done until the headache passed.
Joseph also told the court that he and his wife had argued the night before Norah’s death. Apparently, Alice had taken to pawning items of late, even though they did not need the money. He had discovered that she had just pawned her wedding ring and this had upset him greatly. They had had words and that night he had slept on the couch in the living room. Alice had come in, at around 10.00pm, and asked him to come to bed but he had refused. Alice had then covered him with some coats, in case he got cold during the night.
Dr Fullert
on was the deputy medical officer at Holloway prison and had observed Alice since her incarceration. He found her to be suffering from very deep depression and during her time in the cells, had often complained of terrible headaches. He had no doubt that she was insane at the time she took her daughter’s life.
Those final two witnesses swayed the jury who found Alice guilty of murder but insane. Having avoided a death sentence, Alice was then sentenced to be detained until a further order was made by the appropriate authorities.
Chapter 25
Madan Lal Dhingra
1909
The entertainment in the Jehangir Hall in the Imperial Institute, South Kensington, on Thursday, 1 July 1909, had been enjoyed by all of the distinguished guests and now, as the meeting broke up, people gathered in small groups to talk and discuss the speeches that they had heard. One of the guests, Sir William Hutt Curzon-Wylie, the Aide-de-Camp to the Secretary of State for India, stood in the doorway, talking to some people.
One of the people Sir William was speaking to was a young Indian gentleman, wearing evening dress and a blue turban. Suddenly, as people still milled about, the young Indian raised his hand and pointed a gun directly at Sir William’s head. Four shots were fired directly into Sir William’s head. These shots were followed by a pause, and then another shot rang out. For some moments, all the other guests in the room were shocked into inactivity but, after the fifth shot was fired, a number of men moved forward to grab the assailant. One of those men was Dr Cowas Lalcaca and as he approached, the young Indian raised the gun once more and fired a bullet into Dr Lalcaca’s stomach. Finally, the young Indian raised the gun to his own temple and pulled the trigger. There was a loud click. The assailant was out of ammunition. He was immediately seized and pinned to the floor, pending the arrival of the police.
The first police officer on the scene was Constable Frederick Nicholls. By now, the man who had fired those six shots was on his feet and being held by several men. He offered no resistance, as Nicholls took him into custody, or as the officer searched him. Within a few minutes, Detective Sergeant Frank Eadley arrived at the Institute and he assisted Nicholls to escort the prisoner to Marylebone police station. There, the young man identified himself as Madan Lal Dhingra, a student. Lal Dhingra had been born in the Punjab on 18 February 1883 to a family, who were loyal to the British. As a young man he had studied at Lahore, but had been expelled due to his political activities. He had then travelled to England, arriving here in 1906 and enrolling as a student of mechanical engineering at University College.
At the police station, Lal Dhingra was informed that both Sir William and Dr Lalcaca were dead, and in the early hours of 2 July, he was charged with murdering both men. He made a full written statement, explaining his motives for the crimes.
Later that same day, Friday, 2 July, Madan Lal Dhingra appeared at the Westminster Police Court. The evidence having been heard, the prisoner was duly sent for trial on the capital charge. His trial took place exactly three weeks later, on 23 July, before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Alverstone. A formidable array of legal talent lined up for the prosecution. Led by the Attorney General, Sir William Robson, he was assisted by Mr Bodkin, Mr Rowlatt and Mr Leycester. Lal Dhingra had no legal representation whatsoever.
At the start of the trial, Lal Dhingra refused to be represented, saying that he did not recognise the court. In his opinion, as far as Sir William was concerned, he had committed no crime. He had merely assassinated an enemy of his country. As for the death of Dr Lalcaca, that had been nothing more than a tragic accident and was a case of self-defence. Despite his remonstrations, a formal not guilty plea was entered and evidence called on just the one offence; the murder of Sir William.
Mrs Harris lived at 106 Ledbury Road, Bayswater, and she testified that the prisoner had come to lodge with her on Easter Monday, 1909. On the day of the shooting, 1 July, he had left her house at 2.00pm. He had returned at around 8.00pm in order to change for a meeting he said he was going to. He had changed quickly and left soon afterwards.
William Burrow was an assistant at Gamage’s Store in Holborn. He told the court that his employer sold guns, amongst many other items, and kept a register of purchases. This register confirmed that on 26 January, he had sold a Colt automatic pistol to Madan Lal Dhingra, for the sum of £3 5s.
The next witness proved that Lal Dhingra had then started to practise using that weapon. Henry Stanton Morley owned a shooting range at 92 Tottenham Court Road and he stated that some time around March, Lal Dhingra had started attending the range two or three times a week. Over the next three months he became a much better shot and by now was quite proficient. He always brought his own weapon, a Colt automatic, and had last attended on 1 July, at around 5.30pm. Morley then produced the target Lal Dhingra had used on that day. He had fired twelve shots at a target 18 feet away, and scored eleven hits.
Miss Beck was the Honorary Secretary of the National Indian Association, the group who had organised the events of 1 July at the Institute. She began by confirming that Sir William had been a member of the Council and the Honorary Treasurer of the group.
Miss Beck went on to say that she had first encountered Lal Dhingra in March 1909, when he had written to say that he was interested in attending meetings or talks given by the Association. There had been a talk given in May and she had sent him an invitation, but he did not attend. The next time she had contacted Lal Dhingra was to send him an invitation for the discussion on the evening of 1 July. She had seen him there, at around 10.30pm, and spoke to him briefly. She knew that he was a student at University College and asked him about his course. He explained that he had now completed his studies and was about to return to India.
Douglas William Thorburn was a journalist and he was at the Institute to cover the meeting for his newspaper. At 11.00pm, he was in the main hall when he happened to glance up. He saw Lal Dhingra, apparently in conversation with Sir William, in the doorway. He saw the prisoner raise a gun and fire four shots directly into Sir William’s face. Moments later, he saw Dr Lalcaca fall to the floor after being shot. Thorburn was one of the men who then ran forward and helped push Lal Dhingra to the floor.
Sir Leslie Probyn was another of the guests at the meeting. He too saw the shots being fired and went to help Thorburn and others pin the shooter to the ground. It was Probyn who wrestled the gun from Lal Dhingra’s hand and later handed it over to the police.
Captain Charles Rolleston had his back to the shooting, but turned in time to see Lal Dhingra fire at an Indian gentleman in evening dress. He now knew that gentleman to be Dr Lalcaca and Rolleston saw him fall backwards, after he had been shot.
After Constable Nicholls and Sergeant Eadley had given their testimony, Inspector Albert Draper took the stand. He had had charge of Lal Dhingra at the police court and he testified that after the proceedings had closed, Lal Dhingra spoke to him saying; ‘The only thing I want to say is that there was no wilful murder in the case of Dr Lalcaca. I did not know him and when he advanced to take hold of me, I simply fired in self-defence.’
Doctor Thomas Neville had been called to the Institute to examine both victims of the attack. Later, at the police station, he examined the prisoner and found him to be calm, collected and quiet. Dr Neville checked Lal Dhingra’s pulse and found it to be perfectly regular and normal.
Neville had performed both post-mortems, but only detailed the wounds suffered by Sir William. He had been shot in the right eye and there was a corresponding exit wound at the back of his neck. There were two wounds just over his left eye and another below his left ear. Death would have been instantaneous.
After all the evidence had been heard, Lal Dhingra was asked if he had anything to say in his own defence. He replied, ‘I have nothing to say. I admit that I did it. The evidence is all true. I should like my statement read.’
The statement Lal Dhingra referred to was a long one he had made after his arrest. This was then read out in court. It began: ‘I do
not want to say anything in defence of myself, but simply to prove the justice of my deed. As for myself, no English law court has got any authority to arrest and detain me in prison, or pass sentence of death on me.’
The statement continued: ‘And I maintain that if it is patriotic in an Englishman to fight against the Germans, if they were to occupy this country, then it is much more justifiable and patriotic in my case to fight against the English.
‘I hold the English people responsible for the murder of eighty millions of Indian people in the last fifty years, and they are also responsible for taking £100,000,000 every year from India to this country.
‘I also hold then responsible for the hanging and deportation of my patriotic countrymen, who did just the same as the English people here are advising their countrymen to do.
‘Just as the Germans have no right to occupy this country, so the English people have no right to occupy India, and it is perfectly justifiable on our part, to kill the Englishman who is polluting our sacred land.
‘I make this statement, not because I wish to plead for mercy or anything of that kind. I wish that English people should sentence me to death, for in that case the vengeance of my countrymen will be all the more keen. I put forward this statement, to show the justice of my cause to the outside world, and especially to our sympathisers in America and Germany.’
The verdict was a formality, the jury not even bothering to leave the court before returning it, and Lal Dhingra was then sentenced to death. He listened in silence as the death sentence was intoned and then replied, ‘Thank you my Lord. I don’t care. I am proud to have the honour of laying down my life for the cause of my motherland.’
There was no appeal and no reprieve. On Tuesday, 17 August, twenty-six-year-old Madan Lal Dhingra was hanged at Pentonville prison by Henry Pierrepoint and his brother, Thomas.
Foul Deeds in Kensington and Chelsea Page 10